Dr.PeteFamMed said:

The liver data is among the strongest non-weight findings in the class.

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Taking it to my next appointment.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

lisa_labSD said:

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

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.

One concrete data point for the thread. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. No action needed from anybody.