Second pass at: Pregnancy and pregnancy planning: contraindication and washout

Agreed on Pregnancy and pregnancy planning, with one qualification that I think matters. The reasoning holds for the case as described. Change the starting assumption and it does not, and the starting assumption is the part nobody states.

Narrowing post #47, because the general version has more than one answer.

Being outside the studied population does not mean a treatment is unsafe. It means the usual evidence is not available and the reasoning has to be explicit.

Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.

Post #53 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

On Pregnancy and pregnancy planning I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.

Small correction to my own earlier position on Pregnancy and pregnancy planning. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.

Extrapolating a point estimate to somebody well outside the enrolled range should be described as an extrapolation every time it is done.

Worth separating two things that post #96 runs together.

Trying to state the Pregnancy and pregnancy planning position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.

I have three months of notes on Pregnancy and pregnancy planning and the honest summary is that the trend is real and the week-to-week numbers are noise. I nearly drew the opposite conclusion from the first fortnight.

Coming back to post #120, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

If someone has run Pregnancy and pregnancy planning properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.