chris_chi24 said:

It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.

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.

Happy to go further on any of that.

jason_sac26 said:

Steady state is the thing most people miss.

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

chris_chi24 said:

It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.

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.

One concrete data point for the thread. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful.