The food noise is gone and honestly it is kind of unsettling

anna.melb_AU said:

The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.

One thing that is still open after anna.melb_AU’s answer:

Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?

lisa_labSD said:

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

Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.

lisa_labSD said:

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

Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.