One thing that is still open after newstart_MO’s answer:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
LindaRN_retired said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
Worth separating that from liver and MASH, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
LindaRN_retired said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
No disagreement with LindaRN_retired. One condition attached. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsLindaRN_retired said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.