anders_CPH said:

Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.

anders_CPH said:

Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…

That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.

Reporting back.

Update — I came back down one step, held for a month, then went up again and it was uneventful the second time. Same ladder, slower.

Worth restating a point from upthread for anyone joining at this page:

True, though the ladder is longer and that is not a neutral detail — six dose steps means six opportunities to stall on the way up, and plenty of people never reach the dose the headline number came from.

EndoResFellow said:

True, though the ladder is longer and that is not a neutral detail — six dose steps means six opportunities to stall on the way up, and plenty of…

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.