kate.chem said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Pushing back on kate.chem here. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
kate.chem said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
kate.chem said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Taking it to my next appointment.
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 distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
hans_munich said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.