reading REDEFINE threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly
reading REDEFINE threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly. Making the case below, and I expect to lose some of it in the comments. Complementary mechanisms are the rationale for pairing: satiety signalling alongside incretin signalling, rather than more agonism at the same receptor. The engineering problem was…
Cosigning on the thin independent data. Fewer members test this, so the bands are wider and should be treated that way.
[removed by moderator]
Monotherapy arm or combination arm?
Asked a question here that turned out to be based on a mechanism confusion. Three people untangled it patiently.
Sent a vial to Medutest because there was almost nothing on file for this compound. 97.6% against a claimed 97.0%, and I posted it because the log needs entries.
independent purity data on this compound is thin
Correction: that is the combination programme, not the monotherapy readout. Different arms, different numbers.
Yes. Anyone reading this board should hold their conclusions loosely until phase 3 reports.
This. Complementary mechanisms rather than more of the same is the actual argument for the pairing.
Small fix — amylin analogue, not a GLP-1 analogue. The whole mechanism argument changes on that word.