andrew_nyc said:

Six weeks on from posting: I stopped reading the weekly number and started reading a four-week average, and the "stall" I opened this thread about was…

Mine went the same way, slower.

andrew_nyc said:

Six weeks on from posting: I stopped reading the weekly number and started reading a four-week average, and the "stall" I opened this thread about was…

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

One concrete data point for the thread. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.

Following on from andrew_nyc — and this may be the naive question:

What the dose-response curve actually looks like above 1.7mg, because the trial means hide how few people account for the extra loss?

VendorMark said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

I read this differently from VendorMark, on substance rather than tone. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.