anna.melb_AU said:

There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule. Anyone who slowed the ladder for tolerability is on a different, flatter curve, and comparing yourself with the published mean will make you feel like a non-responder when you are not.

LabKate said:

Albumin binding above 99% is the whole reason weekly dosing works, and it is also why the trough matters more than the peak.

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

anna.melb_AU said:

There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

Pushing back on anna.melb_AU here. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.

Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part.