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

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

FDA_TrackerJim said:

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

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.

Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.

FDA_TrackerJim said:

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

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.

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.