Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

Dr.KarenChen said:

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

I read this differently from Dr.KarenChen, on substance rather than tone. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.

Dr.KarenChen said:

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

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.

Dr.KarenChen said:

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

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source.