Is that TESTS measure what's there floating around to be used...or not. The ways of finding out what might actually is being used are invasive-meaning biopsies. The tests, their own foibles and viabilities are widely open to interpretation. Soo, It's up to US to clearly state dosage X =cause y, effect z, versus dosage A= cause b, effect c..and so on.
The whole thing is scary when you mix in the particular biases of any given doc. That's where I find that here in the US searching out their backgrounds...training, WHO they've trained under etc can give you hints sometimes or clues at to the Where They Are Coming From is. I've found that for some the more active they are on national/regional and areas specialty boards the more curious they are OR are selling their own philosphies very strongly. But if you can get a glimmer of their opinions thru papers they've worked on in the past it sure helps to see the where's of their approaches. Not always tho. Some very good docs are total sleepers in terms of research or clinical involvements...they just DO.
Trick is mostly to ask them to essentially DO what you want by asking them WHY NOT? And if not, what is the fundamental and further technical rationale for NOT? You usually don't have to get that assertive tho, should it come to that, it's time for second, third and multiple other outside opinions to put the peer pressure on to Do what needs to be done. THEN be sure it was THEIR idea?
Honestly in all -in all -it comes down to a lucky or unlucky roll of the dice, so to speak. Or how you play your 'patient' role [cards] to come out ahead in the whole process.
These days that old 'Trust me!' line goes no where [except out the door?] ...facts, clear facts, plus tests are what help me make decisions that get me thru the days.
Rumpled is right tho that in checking the parathyroid and pituitary further while maintaining status quo mite be interesting? That could be a persuader? Tho mite mean even more testing. Your choices and I sure hope you get lucky - j