One concrete data point for the thread. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
DoseLogDan said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDoseLogDan said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Follow-up — I put something in the gap where food used to be rather than waiting for the gap to close on its own. That was the part nobody told me.