PharmHunterJen 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.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

Late follow-up. I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

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

dave_SLC said:

I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.

I read this differently from dave_SLC, on substance rather than tone. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

dave_SLC said:

I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.

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.