Reta hype is insane but I am cautiously optimistic — what worked for you?

labquiet_amy said:

The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.

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.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.

Happy to go further on any of that.

Dr.ObesityLA said:

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

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.

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.