anders_CPH said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

Pushing back on anders_CPH here. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

anders_CPH said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.

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

anders_CPH said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.

Dr.DermMIA said:

The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.