PharmHunterJen said:

Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.

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

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

dave_SLC said:

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

I read this differently from dave_SLC, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.

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

dave_SLC said:

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

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

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