Dr.PainCLE said:

Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.

Coming at Dr.PainCLE’s question from a different direction. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.

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

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

How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?

DataDave said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

Pushing back on DataDave here. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.

DataDave said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.