Dr.GastroMayo said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

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. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.

mike_nyc said:

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

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

Following on from tommy_boulder — and this may be the naive question:

What the phase 2 dropout pattern implies about how the phase 3 tolerability will read?

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.