From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

Dr.RaviCardio said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

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.

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.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

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

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

Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again.