TirzTom said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
I read this differently from TirzTom, on substance rather than tone. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
KevinCompounds said:This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one.
Coming at KevinCompounds’s question from a different direction. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after BariatricNurseD’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Closing the loop. The answer turned out to depend on the detail I had left out of the opening post, which is a lesson about how to ask rather than about the subject.