One thing that is still open after Dr.ObesityMed’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
One thing that is still open after Dr.ObesityMed’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Dr.RaviCardio said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I read this differently from Dr.RaviCardio, on substance rather than tone. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Dr.RaviCardio said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemDr.RaviCardio said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. 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.