Trying to separate three different claims about anastrozole: that it is the right molecule, that it is the right dose, and that it does something useful.
What surprised me is how much of the perceived benefit was routine and attention rather than pharmacology.
Baseline first. Without a baseline the after picture is decoration.
The interesting question is not whether it works but for whom and at what cost.
Read methods.
My rule, after years of this: if it cannot survive being written down with the numbers attached, it is marketing.
I would take the narrow conclusion. Broad ones are more interesting and less true.
What is the first thing you would read if you were starting from zero? Same for me with anastrozole, unfortunately.
This board overrates bloodwork. A number moving is not the outcome you wanted.
Nobody has ever been talked out of a stack by a stranger on the internet.
This board overrates bloodwork. A number moving is not the outcome you wanted.
How long before you can reasonably say something is or is not doing anything?
How long before you can reasonably say something is or is not doing anything?
Narrow conclusion, briefly right. Broad conclusion, interestingly wrong. I know which I keep choosing.
What is the first thing you would read if you were starting from zero?
Test one thing at a time. It feels slower and it is the only way to learn anything.
How long before you can reasonably say something is or is not doing anything?
Where does the human data stop and the extrapolation begin? That is the whole thread.