hans_munich said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
hans_munich said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Coming at hans_munich’s question from a different direction. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
One concrete data point for the thread. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOne thing that is still open after hans_munich’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
DataDave said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.