PureRawz peptides — looking for input

CarlaRPh_TPA said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.

One thing that is still open after CarlaRPh_TPA’s answer:

How long did you give it before you decided it was working?

FDA_TrackerJim said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.

FDA_TrackerJim said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.