Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.

TirzTom said:

If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

One concrete data point for the thread. 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.

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

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Carry on.