Dr.RenalNash said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
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.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
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 ResultsTirzTom said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.
TirzTom said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.