This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Narrowing post #59, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
Everything in post #61 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
I keep a log of this specifically because memory is unreliable about it.
Tracking severity on a simple scale with dates is far more useful than describing it afterwards. Memory smooths a symptom curve into a story that fits what you expected.
One more caveat and then I will stop qualifying: the sample selected itself.
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.
Answering the question post #65 raises rather than the one it answers.
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.
Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.
Post #66 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.
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.
I am reporting what happened, not recommending it.
Vomiting: when it is expected (first-dose reactions or early titration) and when it is a reason to stop and seek help are different. Occasional vomiting during titration is ordinary. Persistent vomiting or vomiting of a new character later in treatment warrants contact with your clinician.
Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.
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.
Post #67 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
I would be interested in a counterexample if anyone has one.
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.
This is the answer, and the reason it is the answer is the more useful part.
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.
That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.
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 answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.
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.
Worth reading the earlier posts in this thread before acting on mine.
Adding the measurement that post #80 says would settle it.
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.
Acknowledging rather than arguing. The reasoning holds as far as I can follow it.
Where I part company with post #82, and it is a narrow parting.
The practical division worth making is between symptoms that are unpleasant, symptoms that are limiting, and symptoms that are a reason to stop and get assessed. They call for completely different responses.
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 short answer was in the first line; everything after is the working.
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.
I have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.
Confirming post #84 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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.
I had written a reply contradicting post #86 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
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.
Vomiting: when it is expected (first-dose reactions or early titration) and when it is a reason to stop and seek help are different. Occasional vomiting during titration is ordinary. Persistent vomiting or vomiting of a new character later in treatment warrants contact with your clinician.
I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.
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.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.