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.

anders_CPH 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…

Coming at anders_CPH’s question from a different direction. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

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

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.