Following on from KevinCompounds — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
pam_stl said:Nothing dramatic to report, which is the report.
I read this differently from pam_stl, on substance rather than tone. 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.
pam_stl said:Nothing dramatic to report, which is the report.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultspam_stl said:Nothing dramatic to report, which is the report.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.