Following on from pete_nash — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Dr.PathRoch said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
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.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.PathRoch said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.