The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.

Reporting back.

Update — I came back down one step, held for a month, then went up again and it was uneventful the second time. Same ladder, slower.

raj_cambridge said:

Update — I came back down one step, held for a month, then went up again and it was uneventful the second time.

I read this differently from raj_cambridge, on substance rather than tone. 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.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

raj_cambridge said:

Update — I came back down one step, held for a month, then went up again and it was uneventful the second time.

That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.

raj_cambridge said:

Update — I came back down one step, held for a month, then went up again and it was uneventful the second time.

This answered a question I did not know how to ask.