NeuroNate said:Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
NeuroNate said:Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from NeuroNate — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
jason_paloalto said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.