anders_CPH said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.

anna.melb_AU said:

Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…

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

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.

Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. No action needed from anybody.