Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
PedsEndoPhilly said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Second this.
PedsEndoPhilly said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemThis was answered several pages up and is worth repeating rather than re-litigating:
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.
Following on from PedsEndoPhilly — and this may be the naive question:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?