[Lab] two reta batches, two services, 98.4% and 97.9%
two reta batches, two services, 98.4% and 97.9%, and before anyone asks: same batch throughout, single submission, no cherry-picking between services.
98.4% and 97.9%. Those are measured, not estimated, and not rounded up in my favour.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
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.
Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The phase 2 readout ran to 48 weeks in a few hundred participants with a slow escalation. Both the size and the duration matter when people quote the headline number.
Is that the 48-week figure or an earlier readout?
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
Has anyone posted an independent test on this compound recently?
Same read. The energy-expenditure mechanism is the interesting bit and it is not established in humans at scale.
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
Push back: quoting the phase 2 headline as an expected outcome is not a fair reading of a small trial with wide intervals.
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
What do you think the glucagon component is adding, specifically?
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
Not convinced. You are attributing a week of sulphur burps to the glucagon arm when the escalation rate alone would explain it.
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
[deleted]
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
The sulphur burps profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.
the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
Agreed, and the framing that helps is: this is a phase 2 compound with phase 3 running. Everything else is inference.
heart rate is the thing people report watching
- 1Is that the 48-week figure or an earlier readout?8 comments in this branch · started by u/lina_bruun
- 2What do you think the glucagon component is adding, specifically?8 comments in this branch · started by u/mateusz_mensah