From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.RenalNash said:

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

Same pattern here, and in the same order. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

Dr.RenalNash said:

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

Coming at Dr.RenalNash’s question from a different direction. 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.

One concrete data point for the thread. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.

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

How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?