Has anyone dealt with my pharmacist tried to explain the mechanism and my eyes glazed over?

Dr.CardioMD said:

It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.

Following on from Dr.CardioMD — and this may be the naive question:

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

HPLC_Greg said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

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.

HPLC_Greg said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

Agreeing with HPLC_Greg, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.