Dr.MetabolicMD said:

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

I read this differently from Dr.MetabolicMD, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.

Dr.NateNeph said:

Pushing back on the consensus forming here.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

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

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

Reporting back.

Closing the loop. The answer turned out to depend on the detail I had left out of the opening post, which is a lesson about how to ask rather than about the subject.