Long post, sorry. Clomid (clomiphene): what actually has human evidence behind it, and what is extrapolation from animals?
Sample size, blinding, and who paid for it. Those three questions kill most of the confidence in most of these threads.
What surprised me is how much of the perceived benefit was routine and attention rather than pharmacology.
The comparison group matters more than the compound when the outcome is something as fuzzy as focus.
Loose evidence is not the same as no evidence and people overcorrect in both directions.
Willing to accept that my own experience is the weakest evidence in the room.
Loose evidence and no evidence are different, and people overcorrect in both directions. Side effects was my main issue with clomiphene too.
Narrow conclusion.
Stupid question: how do you know whether what is in the vial matches the label at all?
Read methods.
Narrow conclusion, briefly right. Broad conclusion, interestingly wrong. I know which I keep choosing.
Loose evidence and no evidence are different, and people overcorrect in both directions.
Where does the human data stop and the extrapolation begin? That is the whole thread.
Loose evidence and no evidence are different, and people overcorrect in both directions.
Narrow conclusion.
Most of the popular protocol is borrowed from a clinical population and applied to healthy people without comment. Not on clomiphene but the pattern is familiar.
Same here.
A plausible mechanism is not an outcome, and this class is the textbook example. Not on clomiphene but the pattern is familiar.
Stupid question: how do you know whether what is in the vial matches the label at all?