One thing that is still open after andrew_nyc’s answer:

Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?

kate.chem said:

Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

kate.chem said:

Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…

No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

kate.chem said:

Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.