PeptideSynthNJ said:

Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this…

Pushing back on PeptideSynthNJ here. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.

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

PeptideSynthNJ said:

Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this…

Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.

Reporting back.

Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled. Posting it because threads without a follow-up are half a thread.

Reprising the part of this that the last few posts have moved away from:

The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.

Dr.RaviCardio said:

The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.