Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. 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.
MASHdoc_SA said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
Following on from MASHdoc_SA — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?