BethLabQueen said:

For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.

BethLabQueen said:

For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.

No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.

BethLabQueen said:

For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.

This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.

Dr.RheumBOS said:

It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.

Mine went the same way, slower.