Dr.PathRoch said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
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.
TomFromTexas said:That is right, and it stops being right at the edges.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Dr.PathRoch said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Pushing back on Dr.PathRoch here. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThe 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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. No action needed from anybody.