Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.

PharmHunterJen said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

I read this differently from PharmHunterJen, on substance rather than tone. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.

PharmHunterJen said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.

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

PharmHunterJen said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

This answered a question I did not know how to ask.

Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. No action needed from anybody.