Dr.RaviCardio said:

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

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.

BiostatsBrad 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…

Mine went the same way, slower.

BiostatsBrad 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…

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.

One concrete data point for the thread. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.

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

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