Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
Dr.BariatricHTX said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Dr.BariatricHTX said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Coming at Dr.BariatricHTX’s question from a different direction. 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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe 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.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
One thing that is still open after Dr.BariatricHTX’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?