Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Following on from hans_munich — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
PeptideChemSF said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsReporting back.
Following up because I said I would. I changed one thing, left everything else alone, and waited the full interval before looking. It resolved, and I cannot prove which half of that did it.
Dr.PathRoch said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.