Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

hans_munich said:

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

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.

hans_munich said:

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

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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:

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