SleepDoc_PDX said:

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

No disagreement with SleepDoc_PDX. One condition attached. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.

SleepDoc_PDX said:

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

Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.

james_edin said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

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

james_edin said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Coming at james_edin’s question from a different direction. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.