Dr.NutriCornell said:

For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.

I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.

Dr.NutriCornell said:

For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.

That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.

Dr.NutriCornell said:

For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Taking it to my next appointment.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.

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

PharmHunterJen said:

Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.

Second this. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.