Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.

BethLabQueen said:

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

Coming at BethLabQueen’s question from a different direction. 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.

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

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

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

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

Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. Carry on.