Following on from lisa_labSD — and this may be the naive question:

What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?

julia.endo said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.

julia.endo said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.

julia.endo said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

That reframing is the part I needed.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.