Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
BiostatsBrad said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
BiostatsBrad said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.