three years of ranking threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
Right, the rules question again, but with numbers this time. I have 8 data points over 10 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign. The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am describing…
Came off after 50 weeks for financial reasons. Regained about a third over the following year. Back on now at a much lower dose.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
Strongly agree. Transparency wins.
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.