Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
Dr.LipidDallas said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
Dr.LipidDallas said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Agreeing with Dr.LipidDallas, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. The dose-response is real but shallow at the top. Across STEP 1 and STEP 4 the gap between 1.7mg and 2.4mg is a couple of percentage points of body weight on average, and the average is carrying a wide spread — plenty of people at 1.7mg sit above the 2.4mg mean. If a dose is working and tolerable, "working" is the relevant variable, not "maximal".
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.LipidDallas said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.