Sterility is the part people wave through and it is the part that actually bites.
Most of what is called evidence here is one person, one vial, one month.
Same here.
Not on LL-37 but the pattern is familiar.
Sterility is the part people wave through and it is the part that actually bites.
Log dose, time and sleep. Ten seconds a day and it turns the anecdote into something you can look at.
Reconstitution arithmetic is only half the problem. The other half is what was in the vial.
Stupid question: how do you know whether what is in the vial matches the label at all? Injection site reaction was my main issue with LL-37 too.
Read the methods section. It is the only part that says whether the conclusion is allowed to exist.
I would take the narrow conclusion. Broad ones are more interesting and less true.
Three questions kill most of the confidence in a thread like this: sample size, blinding, who paid.
Same here.
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. Currently on LL-37 myself.
An inconclusive account is useful if it stops the next person mistaking a story for a controlled comparison. Currently on LL-37 myself.
Baseline first.