NicoleRaleigh 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…

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

NicoleRaleigh 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…

That reframing is the part I needed. Taking it to my next appointment.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.

paige_pharma said:

The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.

Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

paige_pharma said:

The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.