TomTeleRx said:That holds where the measurement is reliable.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
TomTeleRx said:That holds where the measurement is reliable.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
Dr.PathRoch said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
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.