From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.

Worth separating that from cost and coverage, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

VendorMark said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.

Worth separating that from cost and coverage, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

Happy to go further on any of that.

VendorMark said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.