From the other side of the consultation, briefly. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.

PharmacoVig_BOS said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

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

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.

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

TinaHashiRN said:

Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.

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