My rabbit hole into peptides started with sema and now look at me

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.

Dr.RaviCardio said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

One concrete data point for the thread. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.

One thing that is still open after Dr.RaviCardio’s answer:

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.