Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.

Following on from wendy_avl — and this may be the naive question:

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.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.

Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source.