Not picking on $MRK out of vacuum. But when I read statements bekow , I scratch my head who is advising MRK leadership. Like “we are interested broadly in obesity , not in obesity, but in its comorbidities“ What does that mean ? MASH ? U need to dramatically reduce wt to resolve MASH through GLP1? We know $NVO semaglutide is less effective vs $LLy TZP on MASH ? One would expect orfor and its derivatives ( Merck Chinese mole ) to be even less effective since they result in lower wt loss vs semaglutide. And impact on LDL ? As Dean LI mentally consumed with enlicitide ? Small mole GLP1 agonists have no real impact on LDL for average pt.. whose drop strongly correlates with weight loss depth as I discussed before And what is the point of combining a peptide with a small molecule particularly as a small molecules GLP1 agonists cause chronic nausea and vomiting and indirectly reduce absorption and efficacy of enlicitide .. ? And Dean stresses “ very focused on being very clear not interested in peptides “. This focus 😂 is reflection of likely continuous harassment by analysts and others who view this Merck policy as anti common sense for Merck future. One has to cast the question ; where is Merck board from all that nonsense. ? Merck has a strong history is treating diabetes and being in primary care and current MGT acting to destroy all that legacy.