Dr.NateNeph said:

The mechanism is more central than most summaries suggest.

Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.

EndoResFellow said:

The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.

I read this differently from EndoResFellow, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source.