Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
What I am trying to establish is how people are thinking about the trade-off between reversibility and privacy, because you cannot have both.
If the honest answer is that nobody knows, that is a useful answer and I would rather have it.
Short answer first, then the reasoning. 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.
InsuranceTom said: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.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultstammy_FL said:Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.
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.