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

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

quinn_sf said:

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

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.

quinn_sf said:

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

True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

quinn_sf said:

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

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Taking it to my next appointment.

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.