DanielChem_CHI said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
One concrete data point for the thread. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
LarryQC_SD said:The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is…
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
Closing the loop on my own question.
Closing the loop. The answer turned out to depend on the detail I had left out of the opening post, which is a lesson about how to ask rather than about the subject.