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.

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

VendorMark said:

My insurance denied my PA related to cost and coverage.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.

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

One concrete data point for the thread. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?

Moderator note: a couple of off-topic posts removed. Carry on.