andrew_nyc said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Coming at andrew_nyc’s question from a different direction. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
Following on from andrew_nyc — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesGL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer
Est. 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 BiochemSleepDoc_PDX said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.
SleepDoc_PDX said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.