Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
wendy_avl 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.
wendy_avl said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Carry on.