jason_paloalto 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…

Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.

jason_paloalto 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…

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Taking it to my next appointment.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.

PharmHunterJen said:

It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

PharmHunterJen said:

It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.