Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

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

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

LipidDoc_ATL said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.

LipidDoc_ATL said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.

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