LabKate 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.

LabKate 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.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

Dr.RaviCardio said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

Dr.RaviCardio said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

Coming at Dr.RaviCardio’s question from a different direction. 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.