One thing that is still open after NurseKim_ATL’s answer:

How long did you give it before you decided it was working?

oliver_london 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.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.

oliver_london 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.

That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.

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

oliver_london 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.

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.