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.
One thing that is still open after anders_CPH’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
DataDave said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Coming at DataDave’s question from a different direction. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsClosing the loop on my own question.
For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
chris_chi24 said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.