From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

TinaHashiRN said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.

TinaHashiRN said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.

One concrete data point for the thread. 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.

Happy to go further on any of that.

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

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?