Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

carl_compliance said:

There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

I read this differently from carl_compliance, on substance rather than tone. 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.

carl_compliance said:

There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

carl_compliance said:

There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

That reframing is the part I needed. Taking it to my next appointment.

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