⚠ Buyer Beware posting rules — read before posting

BiostatsBrad said:

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

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.

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

BiostatsBrad said:

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

That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.

Happy to go further on any of that.

BiostatsBrad said:

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

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

Dr.ReproEndo said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.