[2026 update] Cardiovascular risk: reading the outcome trials as a set posts 91–104

Right, and stated more narrowly than I would have dared to state it.

This follows post #89 rather than contradicting it.

Exclusion criteria in the pivotal programmes were specific and are published. Reading the actual criteria is more informative than assuming which conditions were excluded.

I would call that likely rather than established.

I think the Cardiovascular risk question is answerable and has not been answered, which is a more optimistic position than most of this thread.

Where the honest answer is "nobody knows", giving it plainly is more useful than a confident synthesis of mechanism and anecdote.

Where the Cardiovascular risk reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.

Everything in post #93 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

Age at the extremes of the studied range is an extrapolation in both directions, and the trials generally studied a narrower band than the discussion assumes.

That is the shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.

Cardiovascular risk has been discussed here with more heat than it deserves, mostly because two definitions have been in play the whole time.

Post #97 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

An honest declaration on Cardiovascular risk: I have a prior here and it is strong enough that you should weight what I say downward. Stating it rather than hiding it.

Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.

Where two conditions pull in opposite directions, that is a clinical judgement rather than a lookup, and it is the kind of question a forum answers worst.

Adding it because I spent an afternoon working it out and nobody should have to twice.

Post #101 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Gastrointestinal conditions interact with a mechanism that slows gastric emptying in ways that are plausible and largely unstudied.

Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.

Helpful, and easy to find again, which is half of what a good reply is.

My experience of Cardiovascular risk contradicts the reply above. I am posting it as a data point rather than as a refutation, because one person's experience is exactly that.