_220Progress
Explorer
1- Yes! Initially I was opposed to it. Each subject was addressing different problems through the add-ons.HereKittyKitty said:
@_220Progress Your reporting has been thorough, and I found it both useful and educational. Thanks for that.
Here's hoping the upcoming round works out well for the people in your study.
Two things I'd like to ask:
1. When you were still in the early phase of trialing the first peptide, did you feel any reluctance about adding 2 new components into the mix?
2. What method do you use to determine which substance produced the effect in each test subject?
Appreciate it once more!
Realistically, had a miraculous change occurred, those would have been stopped.
2-Subject B's circumstances were quite specific. Any favorable shift would have counted. With Subject A, the Parkinson's diagnosis opened up multiple tracking options. The systemic pain experienced while walking was the one selected. That measurement did show improvement.
That said, the inconclusive outcome came straight from ARA-290. The remaining variable involved pain markers after the morning. Those did not get better.
I truly value the questions!