A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

How long did you give it before you decided it was working?

carlos_SATX said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.

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

carlos_SATX said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.

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

carlos_SATX said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.