Dr.SurgeonPGH said:The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.
Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
tony_orlando said:Agreed on the mechanism, with the caveat that the head-to-head used semaglutide 1mg, not 2.4mg.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Dr.SurgeonPGH said:The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.
I read this differently from Dr.SurgeonPGH, on substance rather than tone. 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.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOne concrete data point for the thread. 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.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.