PeptideChemSF said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
PeptideChemSF said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. 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.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
EndoResFellow said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. Nothing to add that would improve it.