Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
Following on from KristenIndy — and this may be the naive question:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
TrialNerd_Beth said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
Happy to go further on any of that.
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 BiochemTrialNerd_Beth said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.