carl_compliance said:

It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.

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.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

LindaRN_retired said:

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.

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

carl_compliance said:

It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.

Pushing back on carl_compliance here. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.

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

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.

Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out.