NurseKim_ATL said:

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.

Coming at NurseKim_ATL’s question from a different direction. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

One concrete data point for the thread. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

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

How long did you give it before you decided it was working?

kate.chem said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Pushing back on kate.chem here. 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.

kate.chem said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.

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