Dr.PulmRoch said:

The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.

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

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.

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

One thing that is still open after Dr.PulmRoch’s answer:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

DoseLogDan said:

Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.

I read this differently from DoseLogDan, on substance rather than tone. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.

DoseLogDan said:

Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.

DoseLogDan has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.

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