BethLabQueen said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

sarah_TO said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Mine went the same way, slower. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.

sarah_TO said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Coming at sarah_TO’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.

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.