chris_chi24 said:

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

That holds for the injectable. The oral formulation has different absorption behaviour and the dose numbers are not interchangeable, which is worth saying out loud because people quote them as if they were.

laura_annarbor said:

Steady state is the thing most people miss.

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.

chris_chi24 said:

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

I will push back on the "any working dose is fine" framing. The maintenance evidence sits overwhelmingly at the top studied dose, and the extension data shows regain tracking dose reduction rather than tracking stopping. Holding low is reasonable; pretending it is evidentially equivalent is not.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.

Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source.