“As many as” 20% so, less than 20%? So it’s more than 80% effective?
this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
32 points (92.1% liked)
Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related
2401 readers
855 users here now
Health: physical and mental, individual and public.
Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.
See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.
Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.
Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.
Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The article is about that 20% and how they’re feeling pretty shitty after taking a drug that works for 80% and not seeing weightloss despite the significant hype. It’s basically obesity experts trying to calm expectations slightly—the drug works for a lot of people but you can’t count on it being a magic bullet for everyone.
hahah yeah what an ass-backwards way of attempting shit on efficacy
To be honest, 80% effectiveness for a generation 2 of a long term drug is a pretty nice value, especially in this field and the regulatory mechanisms it affects.
That's better than basically most psychiatric, antivirals, antihypertensive and antidiabetic medication.
Only a few long term drugs like contraceptives, some chemotherapeutics and some hormone replacement drugs work that well in that many cases. And most of them are not Gen 2 drugs in a new field.
What, you’re saying weight is complicated and not just down to one factor for everyone?!
It’s cool we have proof of this via the magic drugs.
I'll take my chances after continued testing. 80% is great.
I wonder if they will respond better to retatrutide, since it's a glucagon triple agonist.