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.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

Whether anyone has held at a sub-maximal dose long term and kept the result, or whether the maintenance data only exists at 2.4mg?

labquiet_amy 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 labquiet_amy, on substance rather than tone. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.

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

labquiet_amy 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…

Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.

labquiet_amy 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…

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.