From the other side of the consultation, briefly. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

VendorMark said:

There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.

VendorMark said:

There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Read four things before the headline number. The population, because trial populations are selected and supported in ways that real cohorts are not. The comparator, because "better than placebo" and "better than the current standard" are different claims and get reported identically. The primary endpoint as pre-registered, because a secondary endpoint promoted after the fact is a hypothesis rather than a finding. And the completion rate, because a large effect in the half of participants who finished is a different result from a large effect in everybody enrolled.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

Following this thread I went back and re-read the extension data properly. The point about trough rather than peak explains the pattern I was seeing on day six, which I had been blaming on the vial.