Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
PharmD_Rodriguez said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Same pattern here, and in the same order.
PharmD_Rodriguez said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Closing this out: the trough rather than the peak explains the pattern I was seeing on day six, which I had been blaming on the vial.