RetaRick_CA said:

The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.

I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.

JennaRN said:

The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.

Coming at JennaRN’s question from a different direction. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.

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

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

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

Reporting back.

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.