NurseKim_ATL said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Second this. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
NurseKim_ATL said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
labquiet_amy 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…
Pushing back on labquiet_amy here. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.