TinaHashiRN said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Coming at TinaHashiRN’s question from a different direction. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
One thing that is still open after TinaHashiRN’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL Biochemhank_denver said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
hank_denver said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.