KevinCompounds said:

Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…

I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.

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.

LarryQC_SD said:

The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.

Coming at LarryQC_SD’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

Following on from FranDenver — and this may be the naive question:

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

Reporting back.

Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction. Correcting it here rather than editing it away.