FDA_TrackerJim said:

The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.

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.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.

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

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. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.

One thing that is still open after SleepFixSam’s answer:

Why adding glucagon agonism to an anti-obesity drug is not self-defeating, given that glucagon raises blood glucose?

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.