Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

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

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

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

stefan_berlin said:

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

Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.

Happy to go further on any of that.

stefan_berlin said:

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

No disagreement with stefan_berlin. One condition attached. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.

stefan_berlin said:

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

That reframing is the part I needed. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.