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

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

anders_CPH 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…

Pushing back on anders_CPH here. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.

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

anders_CPH 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 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.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

anders_CPH 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 answered a question I did not know how to ask. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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 correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.