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.

Dr.NephBHM_UK 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…

Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.

Dr.NephBHM_UK 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 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.

Worth separating that from certificates of analysis, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.

Following on from Dr.NephBHM_UK — and this may be the naive question:

How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?