Triple agonist sounds scary - is it actually safe — need advice

LipidDoc_ATL said:

There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

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.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.

Dr.SportsMedIN said:

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

Coming at Dr.SportsMedIN’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.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

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

Reporting back.

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.