Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.

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

sarah_TO said:

The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.

Same pattern here, and in the same order.

sarah_TO said:

The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.

Happy to go further on any of that.

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

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