Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

NurseAsh_DET said:

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

Same pattern here, and in the same order. Nothing to add that would improve it.

NurseAsh_DET said:

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

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.

One thing that is still open after NurseAsh_DET’s answer:

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