jason_paloalto 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. 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.

jason_paloalto 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…

True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.

Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again.

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.

rachel_ABQ said:

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

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. Nothing to add that would improve it.