josh_phd_bmore said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.

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

josh_phd_bmore said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

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

jim_asheville 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.

jim_asheville 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…

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.