wendy_avl said:

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

No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.

wendy_avl 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. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.

PharmHunterJen said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

Mine went the same way, slower. Posting only so the count is not one.

PharmHunterJen said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

Coming at PharmHunterJen’s question from a different direction. 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.