Dr.PeteFamMed said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Second this. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

Dr.PeteFamMed said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful.

One thing that is still open after Dr.PeteFamMed’s answer:

Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?

pat_auckland said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.