NurseAsh_DET said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
MASHdoc_SA said:Right, and one flattering data point from a group buy is not consistency.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Taking it to my next appointment.
NurseAsh_DET said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.
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 BiochemAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. Carry on.