BenResearch_OR said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.

Happy to go further on any of that.

Dr.SurgeonPGH said:

Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody…

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.

One thing that is still open after MaxMetOK’s answer:

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

Reporting back.

Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread. Writing that down for the next person who wants the interesting answer.