PurityPaulOR said: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…
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.
PharmD_Rodriguez 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. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsA 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?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
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.