hank_denver said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.
hank_denver said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Agreeing with hank_denver, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
hank_denver said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Taking it to my next appointment.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
Dr.KarenChen said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.