carl_compliance said:RetaRick_CA said: ...regarding the trial evidence...
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.
paige_pharma said:Forest plot interpretation for the the trial evidence meta-analysis: when reading the pooled estimate, pay attention to: Point estimate (HR/RR/OR) —…
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
carl_compliance said:RetaRick_CA said: ...regarding the trial evidence...
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.