Melanocortin agonists: mechanism and the documented adverse profile

Melanocortin agonists: mechanism and the documented adverse profile — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

Comparing STEP 4 (JAMA, 2021) with SURMOUNT-2 (Lancet, 2023) and finding the comparison harder than it looks.

Different populations, different durations, different endpoints defined slightly differently, and in one case a different estimand. People compare the headline percentages anyway, including me until recently.

Is there a defensible way to put these side by side, or is the honest answer that there is not and we should stop?

Reading a supplier's product description as a marketing document: that is exactly what it is. The hyperbole, the mechanism written as fact, the theoretical benefits stated as established benefits — all of that is marketing. Treat it as such and separate it from evidence where evidence exists.

post #7 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

When "no data" is the complete and final answer: if there is no published human data on a compound, that is the state of knowledge. Hope is not a substitute and reasoning from theory is not a substitute. That is not a reason for shame; it is the honest epistemic position.

Why catalogue breadth is not evidence of anything: a supplier listing 500 compounds does not make the 450 untested ones likely to work. It makes them untested compounds with supplier pages.

This follows post #8 rather than contradicting it.

Distinguishing marketed research compounds from true chemical synthesis: some online suppliers sell compounds that are genuinely novel and difficult to obtain elsewhere. Others repackage standard compounds. Verifying what you are buying requires careful documentation review.