GenomicsKate said:

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

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.

DeniseRN_TPA said:

Agreed, with a caveat about community reputation: it is a lagging indicator.

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

GenomicsKate said:

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

Pushing back on GenomicsKate here. 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.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.

Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. No action needed from anybody.