HPLC_Greg 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…

I read this differently from HPLC_Greg, on substance rather than tone. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.

HPLC_Greg 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…

Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.

HPLC_Greg 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…

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Taking it to my next appointment.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

Dr.EndoEP said:

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

Second this. Posting only so the count is not one.