This was answered several pages up and is worth repeating rather than re-litigating:
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.
lisa_labSD said:Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
Second this.
Reporting back.
Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread. Writing that down for the next person who wants the interesting answer.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsComing back to something from earlier in the thread, because it keeps being talked past:
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.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?