PeptideChemSF said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
PeptideChemSF said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
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.
PeptideChemSF said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
NurseAsh_DET 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.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. Nothing to add that would improve it.