mia_MS2 said:Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Mine went the same way, slower. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
mia_MS2 said:Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The dose-response is real but shallow at the top. Across STEP 1 and STEP 4 the gap between 1.7mg and 2.4mg is a couple of percentage points of body weight on average, and the average is carrying a wide spread — plenty of people at 1.7mg sit above the 2.4mg mean. If a dose is working and tolerable, "working" is the relevant variable, not "maximal".
One concrete data point for the thread. 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.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from mia_MS2 — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
PharmacoVig_BOS 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 PharmacoVig_BOS 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.