FDA_TrackerJim said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
FDA_TrackerJim said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
FDA_TrackerJim said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
DebRD_ATL said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Second this. Posting only so the count is not one.