Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.

Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

Dr.Martinez said:

It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.

Same pattern here, and in the same order. Nothing to add that would improve it.

Dr.Martinez said:

It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.

Coming at Dr.Martinez’s question from a different direction. 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.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.

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

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?