Dr.RenalNash said: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…
I read this differently from Dr.RenalNash, on substance rather than tone. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
sarah.morrison said:Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the…
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from bbq_ray_KC — and this may be the naive question:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
Reporting back.
Late follow-up. I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.