DanielChem_CHI said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
That reframing is the part I needed.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
james_edin said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. Posting only so the count is not one.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsjames_edin said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.