NurseLeah_Nash said:The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
Dr.PainCLE said:The manufacturing argument is the underrated one.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
NurseLeah_Nash said:The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.
Pushing back on NurseLeah_Nash here. I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them. The results probably generalise, and "probably" should be stated as an assumption rather than dropped.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Moderator note: a couple of off-topic posts removed. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.