What SELECT changed about how semaglutide is discussed, and what it did not

Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What SELECT changed about how semaglutide is discussed, and what it did not

I was wrong about SELECT in a thread last spring and I would like to correct it publicly rather than quietly.

The error was in the units, which changed the conclusion by an order of magnitude. Setting out the corrected version, and the way I now check for that class of mistake.

What I would want before treating SELECT as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.

What I would check first on SELECT is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.

Acknowledging rather than arguing. The reasoning holds as far as I can follow it.

Answering the question post #66 raises rather than the one it answers.

SELECT: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.

SELECT has a well-known answer and a correct answer, and the interesting work is establishing that they are the same. Nobody has done that here yet.

The opalescent appearance in semaglutide solutions is occasionally noted and the mechanism is unclear. It does not appear to correlate with product failure in practice. Visible particles or frank cloudiness is different and would be reason to contact the supplier.

Before the thread moves on from SELECT — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.