Dr.AddMedPHL 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. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.

Dr.AddMedPHL 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…

True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.

Dr.AddMedPHL 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 reframing is the part I needed.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.

Worth separating that from the baseline and follow-up panel, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

Dr.SportsMedIN said:

It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.

Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.