Dr.EndoIndy said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
patPC_UT said:Agreed, with a caveat about community reputation: it is a lagging indicator.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Taking it to my next appointment.
Dr.EndoIndy said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
I read this differently from Dr.EndoIndy, on substance rather than tone. 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.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.