u/sofia_ferreira

event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone

This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.

The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.

external review is the appeal after insurance says no

tendon and rodent data literature in rodents is interesting

Retitled to remove editorialising.

Adding to this: copay is doing more work than the comment implies.

referral links mean instant ban, no exceptions

Phase 20 or 27?

the safety profile is not just tirzepatide amplified

This is correct. Do not generalise from tirzepatide.

number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect

I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry is why the numbers here matter.

Mechanistically the bit that matters is water content. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.

Strongly agree. The safety story is separate.

The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.

Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.

Small correction: the trial was 15 weeks, not 40. Does not change your point but people will quote it.

Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.

absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide

Strongly agree. Mass% and area% are answering different questions on the same document.