A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
raj_cambridge said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I read this differently from raj_cambridge, on substance rather than tone. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
raj_cambridge said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsraj_cambridge said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Taking it to my next appointment.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Late follow-up. I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.