gary_naperville said:Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
gary_naperville said:Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOne thing that is still open after gary_naperville’s answer:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
stefan_berlin 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…
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.