TrialTracker_MD said:

BiostatsBrad said: ...but the FDA says semaglutide...

Agreed, with the qualification that SELECT enrolled a secondary-prevention population. Extrapolating a 20% relative reduction to a healthy 35-year-old with a BMI of 31 is not what that trial showed.

Worth separating that from cardiovascular outcomes, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

PeptideSynthNJ said:

Relative versus absolute is the distinction that gets lost: a 20% relative reduction on a high baseline risk is a large absolute benefit, and the same…

Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.

PeptideSynthNJ said:

Relative versus absolute is the distinction that gets lost: a 20% relative reduction on a high baseline risk is a large absolute benefit, and the same…

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.

Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.