A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

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

dan_philly said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

I read this differently from dan_philly, on substance rather than tone. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.

dan_philly said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.

dan_philly said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.

Worth separating that from the titration schedule, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.