pete_manc_UK said:Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.
Mine went the same way, slower. Posting only so the count is not one.
pete_manc_UK said:Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.
Coming at pete_manc_UK’s question from a different direction. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
One concrete data point for the thread. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOne thing that is still open after pete_manc_UK’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
hank_denver said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.