Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
One thing that is still open after TirzTom’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsquinn_sf said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Pushing back on quinn_sf here. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful.