roxy_nash said:

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

Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.

dan_philly said:

That holds where the measurement is reliable.

That reframing is the part I needed. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

roxy_nash said:

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

Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.

One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.

Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.