The published rates come from populations that were titrated on a defined schedule with clinical supervision. Rates from a forum are not comparable and are biased by who chooses to post.
The question in the title: Dizziness on standing and the electrolyte explanation — does this still hold? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it.
Trying to work out what would count as evidence on Dizziness on standing, before collecting any. This is the part I usually skip and it is the part that makes the rest useful.
If two explanations predict the same observation, observing it does not help. So: what observation would separate them?
Right, and stated more narrowly than I would have dared to state it.
Post #3 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
A symptom that starts weeks after a dose has been stable is a different observation from one that starts after an escalation, and it deserves a different explanation.
I think the Dizziness on standing question is answerable and has not been answered, which is a more optimistic position than most of this thread.
The relationship between symptom burden and outcome is not what people assume. Feeling worse is not evidence of a larger effect and feeling nothing is not evidence of an inactive preparation.
That is the shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.
The published rates come from populations that were titrated on a defined schedule with clinical supervision. Rates from a forum are not comparable and are biased by who chooses to post.
Picking up post #7: that is the part I would want checked first.
The most useful thing anyone has posted about Dizziness on standing in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.
Taking post #9 at face value and following it one step further.
I would keep Dizziness on standing and the decision it usually gets used for separate in this thread. They are related and they are not the same question, and merging them is why the last one went badly.
Post #10 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
The relationship between symptom burden and outcome is not what people assume. Feeling worse is not evidence of a larger effect and feeling nothing is not evidence of an inactive preparation.
The published rates come from populations that were titrated on a defined schedule with clinical supervision. Rates from a forum are not comparable and are biased by who chooses to post.
The practical version of Dizziness on standing is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
Building on post #12 rather than restating it.
Careful with the language on Dizziness on standing. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
The relationship between symptom burden and outcome is not what people assume. Feeling worse is not evidence of a larger effect and feeling nothing is not evidence of an inactive preparation.
Dizziness on standing: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.
Useful. I had the fact and not the reason, which turns out to be the important half.
The published rates come from populations that were titrated on a defined schedule with clinical supervision. Rates from a forum are not comparable and are biased by who chooses to post.
Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.
Something worth flagging about Dizziness on standing: the strongest-sounding claims in this thread are the ones with no source attached, which is the usual pattern and not a coincidence.
I have three months of notes on Dizziness on standing and the honest summary is that the trend is real and the week-to-week numbers are noise. I nearly drew the opposite conclusion from the first fortnight.
Adding what did not work for me on Dizziness on standing, since the failures never get written up and they are half the useful information.
The published rates come from populations that were titrated on a defined schedule with clinical supervision. Rates from a forum are not comparable and are biased by who chooses to post.
On post #23 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
The documentation on Dizziness on standing is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread.
Reframing Dizziness on standing slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.
Post #27 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
An observation about Dizziness on standing that I cannot explain and am posting anyway, on the principle that unexplained observations are more useful public than private.