HPLC_Greg 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 anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.

HPLC_Greg 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, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.

HPLC_Greg 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 answered a question I did not know how to ask. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

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

TinaHashiRN 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. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.