Fibrosis regression on GLP-1 — is scarring really reversible?

Dr.RenalNash said:

The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.

Coming at Dr.RenalNash’s question from a different direction. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

One concrete data point for the thread. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

One thing that is still open after Dr.RenalNash’s answer:

How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?

NicoleRaleigh said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

I read this differently from NicoleRaleigh, on substance rather than tone. 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.

NicoleRaleigh said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

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.