PharmacoVig_BOS said:

The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.

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.

FDA_TrackerJim said:

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

Coming at FDA_TrackerJim’s question from a different direction. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.

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

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.