One thing that is still open after sarah_TO’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
labquiet_amy said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.
labquiet_amy said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultslabquiet_amy said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.