pat_auckland said:

It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

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.

One thing that is still open after pat_auckland’s answer:

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

PharmacoVig_BOS 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 where I part company with the consensus forming above. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.

PharmacoVig_BOS 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…

Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.