Dr.RaviCardio said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Coming at Dr.RaviCardio’s question from a different direction. 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.
One concrete data point for the thread. 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.
One thing that is still open after Dr.RaviCardio’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.GutHealth said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
I read this differently from Dr.GutHealth, on substance rather than tone. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
Dr.GutHealth said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.