dave_SLC said:

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

Pushing back on dave_SLC here. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.

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

dave_SLC 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.

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

dave_SLC said:

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

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.

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

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

Dr.KarenChen said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

Same pattern here, and in the same order. Nothing to add that would improve it.