pete_nash said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Adding 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.
Following on from pete_nash — and this may be the naive question:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
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 BiochemFDA_TrackerJim said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
FDA_TrackerJim said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.