A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

How long did you give it before you decided it was working?

lucas_SP_BR said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.

lucas_SP_BR said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

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.

lucas_SP_BR said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.