I wish to share a thought with the forum after reading for the nth time that somebody interprets the researchers not finding a significant difference as the treatments being the same, or that it makes no difference whether I do X vs if I do Y, because this experiment found no difference.

It seems important then to state that failing to find a significant difference can be related to many other factors, for example sample size not being large enough, confounding variables having a larger weight vs the experimental variable, etc.

In other words, failing to prove that there is a 95% probability that treatments are different, does NOT mean that there is a 95% probability that treatments are similar, or even 50%, or any probability. We just do not know...