Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.

VendorMark said:

The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.

VendorMark said:

The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.

One concrete data point for the thread. 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.

One thing that is still open after VendorMark’s answer:

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