Triple agonist side effect profile — what worked for you?

JennaRN said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

I would rather people stopped quoting the 24% as if it were a licensed outcome. It is a phase 2 result in a few hundred participants with no cardiovascular endpoint and no long-term safety data, and this board has a habit of treating pipeline numbers as settled.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.

Dr.ObesityMed said:

I would rather people stopped quoting the 24% as if it were a licensed outcome.

Coming at Dr.ObesityMed’s question from a different direction. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.

One thing that is still open after SleepFixSam’s answer:

Why adding glucagon agonism to an anti-obesity drug is not self-defeating, given that glucagon raises blood glucose?

Closing the loop on my own question.

Rereading it with the dropout table open changed my view. I still think it is the most interesting molecule in the pipeline; I no longer think the 24% is the number that will end up on a label.