GenomicsKate said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
DeniseRN_TPA said:Agreed, with a caveat about community reputation: it is a lagging indicator.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
GenomicsKate said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Pushing back on GenomicsKate here. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. No action needed from anybody.