Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.

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

EndoResFellow 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.

Same pattern here, and in the same order. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

EndoResFellow 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.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.

Closing the loop on my own question.

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

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

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