[Question] how do you actually verify glucagon
how do you actually verify glucagon, and I want the answer with the reasoning attached rather than just the conclusion.
Where the evidence actually stands, since every thread here assumes a different answer.
Phase 2 reported a large mean body weight change at 48 weeks across a few hundred participants with a slow, protocol-driven escalation. The effect size was striking. The confidence intervals were wide, the population was small, and the duration was under a year.
Phase 3 is running. Until it reports, everything else — including the ranking arguments this board loves — is extrapolation from a small study. That is not a criticism of the compound; it is a description of the evidence.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use and nothing here should be read as a recommendation to use it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
It is a triple agonist at the GLP-1, GIP and glucagon receptors. The glucagon arm is the genuinely novel component and it is the one with the least human outcome data behind it.
Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range. Phase 3 estimates it precisely in a bigger population and catches what phase 2 was too small to see. Treating them as the same tier of evidence is the recurring error here.
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
Has anyone posted an independent test on this compound recently?
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
Agreed on the heart-rate reports. They are consistent enough across the threads to be worth noting, not enough to be a finding.
Careful with the rankings. A phase 2 result and a phase 3 result are not on the same evidential footing and cannot be listed in one table.
the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
small trial, big effect, wide error bars
Sent a vial to Medutest out of curiosity. Result was 98.1% against a claimed 97.5%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
Increases in heart rate have been reported across this receptor class. The magnitude and clinical significance are exactly what phase 3 is powered to establish.
- 1It is a triple agonist at the GLP-1, GIP and glucagon receptors. The…9 comments in this branch · started by u/incretin_ivy
- 2small trial, big effect, wide error bars6 comments in this branch · started by u/helga_vermeulen