Dr.GutHealth said:

It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

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.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. No action needed from anybody.

Dr.RaviCardio said:

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

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

Dr.RaviCardio said:

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

Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.