dose, page-10

I didn't think the explanation would satisfy you edwardsh, and I was right.

The fact is that the precise mode of action of many drugs, especially developmental ones, may not not be completely understood. This seems to be true to a degree for AOD9604. With respect to the dosage anomalies, the hypothesis presented by the company is that there is a physiological dose which works primarily by inhibiting lipogenisis in both men and women, and another superphysiological dose which boosts fat burning - but primarily in men, or at least less well in women.

This idiosyncratic behavior had not been identified at the time of the Phase 2a trials which recruited males exclusively. These male participants responded well to the superphysiological doses (10mg plus). Mind you, doses lower than 10mg were not even tried in the Phase 2a trials. It's rather natural that one goes with what one knows, and that's what the company did when devising the first Phase 2b trials.

You need to remember that the development of a drug, especially one that influences weight gain and loss, is very problematic to test and trial because of the complexities introdduced by social behavior. I give the company high marks for their adaptation to the knowledge that they have gained through the trial process. All that knowledge was applied to the present trial protocols, and we shall soon know who is right and who is wrong.