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.
That is consistent with mine, for whatever one more account is worth.
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 strength of my opinion here exceeds the strength of my evidence.
Post #93 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Dehydration is the mechanism behind more of the secondary complaints here than people expect. Reduced intake plus vomiting plus a warm week is a straightforward path to feeling dreadful.
If that is already documented somewhere, ignore me and link 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.
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 have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.
I had written a reply contradicting post #93 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
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.
The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.
Confirming post #96 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.
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 balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.
I had read the opposite somewhere and cannot now find where, which tells me something.
Post #99 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Severe, persistent abdominal pain, especially radiating to the back, is in a different category from ordinary gastrointestinal upset and is a reason to seek medical assessment rather than to post about 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.
I am confident about the direction and much less about the magnitude.
Post #105 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.
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 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 general answer and the answer for your case may diverge here.
Confirming post #108 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Dehydration is the mechanism behind more of the secondary complaints here than people expect. Reduced intake plus vomiting plus a warm week is a straightforward path to feeling dreadful.
Posting it because the silence on this was starting to look like agreement.
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.
Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.
On post #110 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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 #112 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.
Where I part company with post #114, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
Reading it back, the second half matters more than the first.
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 reasoning is more useful than the number, which is why I have shown 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.
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.
Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it.