Following on from Dr.NateNeph — and this may be the naive question:

Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?

sophie_paris said:

For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.

I read this differently from sophie_paris, on substance rather than tone. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

sophie_paris said:

For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.

Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.

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

sophie_paris said:

For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.

Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.