I have been running KPV for four months and the honest summary is that the effect is smaller than the internet suggests and real.
My rule now: if a claim cannot survive being written down with the numbers attached, it is marketing.
Cold storage, light protection, and a date on the vial. Boring, and it removes half the variables.
Injection site reactions are trivial until they are not, and a fresh needling technique removes half of them.
Would like a narrow answer rather than an enthusiastic one.
Most of the popular protocol is borrowed from a clinical population and applied to healthy people without comment. Same for me with KPV, unfortunately.
Most of what is called evidence here is one person, one vial, one month.
An inconclusive account is useful if it stops the next person mistaking a story for a controlled comparison.
If it needs three other compounds to notice, you have not tested the first one.
Narrow conclusion.
Most of what is called evidence here is one person, one vial, one month.
Three questions kill most of the confidence in a thread like this: sample size, blinding, who paid. Currently on KPV myself.
Most of what is called evidence here is one person, one vial, one month.
If it needs three other compounds to notice, you have not tested the first one.
Read methods.
Narrow conclusion, briefly right. Broad conclusion, interestingly wrong. I know which I keep choosing.
This is the kind of post the forum exists for.
Most of what is called evidence here is one person, one vial, one month.
Read methods.