Dr.ReproEndo said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.

emma_london said:

Agreed on the arithmetic, with one condition: holding indefinitely at a dose that is not doing anything is not patience, it is a stall with a nice…

This answered a question I did not know how to ask.

Dr.ReproEndo said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Pushing back on Dr.ReproEndo here. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.