VendorMark said:

The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

Happy to go further on any of that.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.

Following on from VendorMark — and this may be the naive question:

What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?

Dr.AddMedPHL said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.

Dr.AddMedPHL said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.