Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

hank_denver 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…

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.

julia.endo said:

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

Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. Nothing to add that would improve it.

Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Carry on.