Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
Dr.MetabolicMD said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.MetabolicMD said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.