Dr.PainCLE said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Dr.PainCLE said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
Coming at Dr.PainCLE’s question from a different direction. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
One concrete data point for the thread. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from Dr.PainCLE — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
LabKate said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.