Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.

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

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

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

What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?

dan_philly said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.

Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.