paige_pharma said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
One concrete data point for the thread. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.
One thing that is still open after paige_pharma’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultskate.chem said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
Pushing back on kate.chem here. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
kate.chem said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.