421–430 of 431 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Care to share what those “other things” you’re concerned about are? If you mean what I suspect you do, then this is a complete false equivalence. But it’s hard to evaluate when you don’t actually state your claim or concerns.
I'm here for two probably contradictory comments. The first is collagen: I'd love to see Lowe's take on recent peer review which says boosting oral collagen does appear to show signs of improved joint pain and skin resilience. Obviously modulated through how protein deprived you are, but for older people, eating enough protein can be an issue: it's not rapidly absorbed so you need 3 squares a day to get to the higher…
Note that there is research showing that whey protein powder has exactly the same effects as collagen, for much lower price. Mechanistically it makes sense, as I understand the ingredients in Collagen are largely a subset of the ingredients in whey powder, albeit at different ratios.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
High-Performance Liquid Chromatography so purity and concentration. Back when I started few people were doing this and it was more of a risk, I was buying from research peptide vendors who had their own testing practices, but now a huge number of people are doing it and there are markets where reputations matter and it appears to be reasonably efficient. I would prefer not to inject peptides from gray market China bu…
Im a libertarian at heart so cant argue too much with people's personal choices, but I can only say that given what I know can go wrong in even the best maintained lab, I wouldn't ever do what youre doing. Yes its all great today, but the day something goes wrong, you may not be happy finding out how its affecting you. Look up the bayer factor viii hiv incident.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I would need to see testing on a control group of housebound patients with other conditions to believe this. It's easy for ME testing to pick up markers for being housebound and limited exercise for an extended period of time.
You sound exactly like the tens of doctors that misdiagnosed my aunt (who passed away through euthanasia after her symptoms got too bad to live with late last year). I understand that the symptoms of ME/CFS might be similar to being obese/depressed or housebound, but the problem is that doctors often jump to that conclusion too quickly and don’t take efforts to diagnose ME/CFS leading to situations like my aunt’s. Sh…
I have followed closely the research for many years and there has been false promise of good diagnostic tests previously. What I'm arguing for is that we need a test that is specific for ME/CFS. E.g. it will test positive for a patient with ME/CFS regardless of they are obese or not, but more importantly it will not test positive for everyone who is obese. This is known as the sensitivity and specificity of the test.
What I've seen in the past is some previous ME/CFS tests show positive for groups with related symptoms but who don't have ME/CFS. This then becomes a worthless diagnostic tool. For example this would not have helped your aunt.
Hope this explains my thoughts!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was referring to the MRNA vaccines, which were relatively untested when released to the public. Suspicion of that is very reasonable.
Okay; noting that the argument has moved from "untested" to "relatively untested". To clarify, is your concern the inadequacy of the approval process FDA uses for (all) vaccines (noting that many vaccines --e.g. influenza-- are refreshed on a fairly regular basis to account for new strains of viruses) or something specific to approval of the MRNA vaccines? Or is it that MRNA vaccines were a new approach for vaccines…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay; noting that the argument has moved from "untested" to "relatively untested". To clarify, is your concern the inadequacy of the approval process FDA uses for (all) vaccines (noting that many vaccines --e.g. influenza-- are refreshed on a fairly regular basis to account for new strains of viruses) or something specific to approval of the MRNA vaccines? Or is it that MRNA vaccines were a new approach for vaccines…
Untested is always relative. And the second, but what’s your point?
I disagree; "untested" is a very definitive statement. Not tested. Especially when it's in a thread discussing people using all manner of less tested or sometimes literally untested peptides. (Hence my initial thought that maybe you were aware of people taking a DIY route that I wasn't.)
Anyway, when discussing a subject so popularly controversial as vaccines, it's probably better to be precise.
> And the second, but what’s your point?
I wanted to understand your perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Germany, at least for Dentists, it is exactly like this. Many training events are, in fact, hardly any different from sales events.
I am curious. Is dentistry considered poor in Germany? Or when compared to other similarly wealthy, highly-developed nations?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the exact quote lol you cut out the exact part I was referring to. > because unless a really substantial amount of engineering has gone into it, any given peptide is going get the same treatment from your digestive system as a chicken breast does, i.e. a complete teardown > Every single YouTube video and blog post I have read about peptites is exclusively about injectable supplements. Collagen peptides, gh…
> Collagen peptides, ghk-cu, and many other peptide supplements are often taken orally. And with very rare exceptions, it's as useful as watching someone workout when you want to gain muscle. Every meat we eat is awash in peptides, and to keep our body from getting hijacked by the signaling for, say a chicken, our body has to break down almost all peptides ingested orally. There are a few exceptions, notably there's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re not understanding the point of the hypothetical, it was to illustrate a scenario in that most people would consider evidential and point out that by definition the opposite outcome must also be evidential even if that outcome was far more likely. It’s to highlight an unintuitive aspect of probability formalized as the bayes ratio. The strength of the evidence is dependent on the priors but it exists. Anecdotal…
And yet neither of the sides are strong enough to term as evidence. I have no problem with self-experimentation. But citing a few anecdotes as evidence is a dangerous area that I discourage. Somedau we will understand why some people respond so favourably to the wolverine stack and others don't. And somebody will someday correlate what those hurt by BPC-157 all have in common. But until then, these peptides cannot be…