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

Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?

NauseaFreeNow said:

The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is…

Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.

Reporting back.

Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction. Correcting it here rather than editing it away.

NauseaFreeNow said:

The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is…

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.

Reprising the part of this that the last few posts have moved away from:

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.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.