claudia_zurich said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.

claudia_zurich said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

Worth restating a point from upthread for anyone joining at this page:

ClinicalTrials.gov GLP-1 trial tracker — updated weekly Posting this as an important update for the clinical trials & research community.

Reporting back.

Following up because I said I would. I changed one thing, left everything else alone, and waited the full interval before looking. It resolved, and I cannot prove which half of that did it.

Following on from claudia_zurich — and this may be the naive question:

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

TrialTracker_MD said:

I changed one thing, left everything else alone, and waited the full interval before looking.

Pushing back on TrialTracker_MD here. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.