anders_CPH said:

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

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

Following on from anders_CPH — and this may be the naive question:

Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?

SleepDoc_PDX said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.

SleepDoc_PDX said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

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.