MarkLI_maint said:

Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. Nothing to add that would improve it.

MarkLI_maint said:

Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.

Coming at MarkLI_maint’s question from a different direction. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

One thing that is still open after MarkLI_maint’s answer:

How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?

Dr.PulmRoch 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 am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.