bri_stats said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.
Worth separating that from the pharmacology, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
bri_stats said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.GastroMayo said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Closing this out: the trough rather than the peak explains the pattern I was seeing on day six, which I had been blaming on the vial.