dan_philly 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 exactly what I could not find anywhere else.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

Dr.DermMIA said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.

Dr.DermMIA said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.