A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
mel_PDX said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.
mel_PDX said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsmel_PDX said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.