Following on from Dr.MetabolicMD — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
MASHdoc_SA said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
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.
MASHdoc_SA said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsMASHdoc_SA said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.