Jul 12, 2025 at 7:01 PM#21
mona_PHX said:Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence.
Second this.
3 1pete_nash, hank_denver, carlos_SATX
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Jul 15, 2025 at 5:33 AM#22
mona_PHX said:Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence.
Coming at mona_PHX’s question from a different direction. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
4 2marco_milano, pam_columbus, nick_SD_fit and 1 other
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Jul 17, 2025 at 4:04 PM#23
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.
5 3SteveThurs, B12Beth, RickReta_CO and 2 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
PeptideMeter — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsJul 20, 2025 at 2:34 AM#24
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
6 4GraceAZ_72, carl_compliance, DanielChem_CHI and 3 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Jul 22, 2025 at 1:02 PM#25
Dr.NateNeph 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…
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Last edited: Jul 22, 2025 at 6:02 PM
7 5RegAffairsDC, BiostatsBrad, PeptideSynthNJ and 4 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report