dave_SLC said:

Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.

Happy to go further on any of that.

dave_SLC said:

Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.

True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.

dave_SLC said:

Reporting back with a partial result, because a partial result is still better than silence.

That reframing is the part I needed. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.

Dr.ObesityLA said:

Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.