u/rulebook_rachael

Propose the wording in a top-level Meta post and I will put it to the other mods. Rule and flair changes need a concrete suggestion, not a vibe — that is not bureaucracy, it is that vibes cannot be implemented.

That is a relative risk reduction.

Agreed. And the interval, not the point estimate, is what the trial actually established.

that's a much easier lever to pull than a rename and I'll bring exactly that suggestion to the mod team, thank you

Adding this to the meta wiki. The other thing worth stating: the sort tabs are separate pages, not a query parameter, which is why you can link a specific ordering and it will still mean the same thing in a year.

Genuinely good question and one worth raising with the mod team properly rather than deciding informally in a comment. My gut reaction as someone who didn't originally name this community: you might be right that it undersells the phase, though renaming an established community has its own costs (confusion, broken links, lost history).

the FAQ/wiki does exist and is linked in the sidebar, the question here was specifically about a megathread requirement, which is a different ask. happy to look at making the sidebar link more prominent though, that's a fair separate point.

Good discussion, and a fair point about language shaping how people feel able to post. Not going to mandate word choice, but happy to gently encourage "regain" over "relapse" in the community guidelines as a suggestion rather than a rule.

We've discussed this before and landed against a hard megathread requirement — individual posts get more eyes and more specific reassurance than a thread that scrolls past in a day. But the wiki link should probably be more visible, that part's a fair criticism.

phase 2 finds a dose, phase 3 measures the effect

Moved to modmail. Individual removals get a specific answer there rather than a public thread.

Moved to modmail. Individual removals get a specific answer there rather than a public thread.

Yes. The appendix tables are where the subgroup and the adverse event detail actually live.

What did the storefront say the lead time was?

Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.

the review page nobody can find on any other site is a warning

Now I buy small from anyone new, test it, and only then commit. It has cost me a few small orders and saved me one large one.

open-label extensions are not the same evidence as the randomised phase

Reminder that no referral or affiliate links are permitted anywhere, from anybody, ever.

the appendix is where the interesting tables live

Careful. What you are describing is a delayed shipment, and this board should not turn that into an accusation without more.

intention to treat versus completers changes the number substantially

Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.

Moved to modmail. Individual removals get a specific answer there rather than a public thread.

no batch number, no date, no method — that is the pattern, not one detail

The press release said that; the publication says something more hedged. Worth reading both.

The press release said that; the publication says something more hedged. Worth reading both.

the archive-after-a-year policy is deliberate

Moved to modmail. Individual removals get a specific answer there rather than a public thread.

if the price is impossible, the material is the thing being economised on

Correcting myself upthread: I gave the completer figure and labelled it intention-to-treat.

if the price is impossible, the material is the thing being economised on

Right, and the group-buy structure is the underrated risk here. One person holds everything and there is no recourse designed in.

How long was the randomised phase before any extension?

Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence.

Push back: an open-label extension tells you about the people who stayed. That is a different question.

Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence.

FLOW was kidney outcomes and it is the one nobody quotes

a shop that will only talk off-platform has told you something

registry entry, protocol, publication — three different documents

This is the distinction that would end about half the arguments on this board.

Correction: that rule applies to the vendor boards specifically, not site-wide.

kaia_fonseca is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.