TB-500 for tissue repair — 12 month update

josh_phd_bmore said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

josh_phd_bmore has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.

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

josh_phd_bmore said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Taking it to my next appointment.

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.

chris_chi24 said:

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…

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.

chris_chi24 said:

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…

Coming at chris_chi24’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.