Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

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

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

Dr.PainCLE said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

Dr.PainCLE said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.

Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part.