wendy_avl said:

Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.

wendy_avl has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.

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

wendy_avl said:

Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion.

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

claudia_zurich said:

Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent…

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

claudia_zurich said:

Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent…

Coming at claudia_zurich’s question from a different direction. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.