Dr.RheumBOS said:

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

Mine went the same way, slower. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

TirzTom said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.

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

TirzTom said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

That reframing is the part I needed. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.

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

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

Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. Carry on.