Dr.Martinez said:Update — I came back down one step, held for a month, then went up again and it was uneventful the second time.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Dr.Martinez said:Update — I came back down one step, held for a month, then went up again and it was uneventful the second time.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
Worth separating that from the titration schedule, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Dr.Martinez said:Update — I came back down one step, held for a month, then went up again and it was uneventful the second time.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
Dr.PulmRoch said:Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent…
Second this. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.