A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
PeptideChemSF 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 is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsPeptideChemSF 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. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.