Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.

hans_munich said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

Mine went the same way, slower. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

hans_munich said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

Coming at hans_munich’s question from a different direction. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.

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.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. No action needed from anybody.