Corrections and Correspondence

Corrections and disputed readings

The most valuable correspondence this desk receives is a correction. If a study on this site has been described inaccurately — wrong species, wrong molecule, a figure that does not match the source, a qualifier dropped in a summary — that is worth reporting, and it will be checked against the cited paper and fixed.

Disputed readings are equally welcome. Several judgements on this site are interpretive rather than factual: that the neural evidence for these compounds is thinner than commonly presented, that a combination-product trial belongs to the combination rather than to one ingredient, that a rodent stroke result using a parent protein should not be cited as evidence for a fragment. Those are arguments, and a well-sourced counter-argument will change the page.

The correspondence address is published on the site's contact channel; messages are read by the editorial desk that writes these pages.

What this desk cannot answer

Some questions arrive regularly and are declined every time, so it is fairer to say so up front.

Questions about how much of something a person should take, on what schedule, by what route, or for how long. No dose for a person appears anywhere on this site, and none will be supplied privately either.

Questions about where to buy any of these compounds, which supplier is trustworthy, or whether a particular product is genuine. This desk has no supplier relationships and no way to verify any product.

Questions about a specific injury, symptom or medical situation. Those need a clinician who can examine the person asking; a literature digest cannot substitute for one, and it would be irresponsible to pretend otherwise.

What the desk can do is point to which studies exist, what each one measured, and where the record simply stops.