Answering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. 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.

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

Dr.NateNeph said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

Agreeing with Dr.NateNeph, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. The phase 2 numbers were about 24% mean weight loss at 48 weeks on the top dose, with the curve still descending at the end of the study. A curve that has not flattened is a real finding, but it also means the true plateau is unknown, and phase 2 populations are small and selected.

Dr.RheumBOS said:

Sceptical rather than excited about the triple agonist, and I would like somebody to talk me out of the scepticism with data rather than enthusiasm.

Mine went the same way, slower. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.