Right yeah, I see those mentions of past studies, which suggest some positive results but don’t say much about long-term outcomes. (My own experience has been t

Right yeah, I see those mentions of past studies, which suggest some positive results but don’t say much about long-term outcomes. (My own experience has been that in early stages of feeling impaired, supplementation of Mg and other nutrients would bring about short-term mood benefits but subside in the medium to long-term (and show no measured changes in hair tests), even with consistent ongoing supplementation, suggesting that the emotional/life issues are an overriding factor long-term. I don't doubt that a simple dietary deficiency of Mg may be a causal factor for some, perhaps even most people. But studies like these often seem happy to report positive outcomes after finding, say, 70% short-term efficacy, but ignore the remainder, in which the causation may be very different. > incentives seem to be aligned such that one should expect patented substances to have the most papers showing positive results vs something cheap and readily available. Yes, which has been a source of frustration, but I understand modern economics, so I get it. > Plus I thought you were only basing this N=1 on blood tests so I didn't like dismissal of paper based on that, thus the tone of my prev reply, I'm sorry about that. Cheers for that.