One thing that is still open after NurseKim_ATL’s answer:

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

quinn_sf said:

A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.

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

quinn_sf said:

A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator.

That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.

This was answered several pages up and is worth repeating rather than re-litigating:

I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.

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

Reprising the part of this that the last few posts have moved away from:

The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.