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

Happy to go further on any of that.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.

One thing that is still open after Dr.AddMedPHL’s answer:

Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?

DoseLogDan said:

One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.

I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.

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