denise_HTX said:I have been on both brand and compounded, and in the context of compounded supply, my experience has been equivalent with both.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
denise_HTX said:I have been on both brand and compounded, and in the context of compounded supply, my experience has been equivalent with both.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
denise_HTX said:I have been on both brand and compounded, and in the context of compounded supply, my experience has been equivalent with both.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
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 ResultsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
LabKate 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…
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.