sarah_TO said:

The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.

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

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

One concrete data point for the thread. 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.

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

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

quinn_sf said:

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

I read this differently from quinn_sf, on substance rather than tone. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.

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

quinn_sf said:

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

That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.

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