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

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

Dr.LeslieOBGYN said:

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

Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

Dr.LeslieOBGYN said:

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

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

One concrete data point for the thread. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.

Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part.