[Lab] ERP reta — PeptideMeter came back 98.9% against a claimed 98.0%
Short version of the title, which is already short: ERP reta — PeptideMeter came back 98.9% against a claimed 98.0%. Longer version underneath.
Figures up front so nobody has to dig: 98.9% and 98.0%.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use, and that is a statement of fact rather than a disclaimer.
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.
Screenshot none of this. Read the whole thread, including the parts where I am told I am wrong.
- ERERP source pageShanghai ERP Biotechnology Co., Ltd. · Shanghai · 90% here, rank 18 · shop at erpbiotechnology.com →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for 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.
Push back: quoting the phase 2 headline as an expected outcome is not a fair reading of a small trial with wide intervals.
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
Removed the escalation schedule. There is no published protocol for members to follow and inventing one here is exactly what this board does not do.
Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
[deleted]
heart rate is the thing people report watching
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part
Not convinced. You are attributing a week of muscle cramps to the glucagon arm when the escalation rate alone would explain it.
triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part
ismael_eriksen is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
the energy-expenditure story is mechanistically interesting and clinically unproven
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
Is that the 48-week figure or an earlier readout?
Agreed on the heart-rate reports. They are consistent enough across the threads to be worth noting, not enough to be a finding.
Agreed on the heart-rate reports.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
Agreed on the heart-rate reports.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
Sent a vial to Medutest out of curiosity. Result was 98.9% against a claimed 98.5%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
Watched heart rate on a wearable across twelve weeks because the threads said to. It moved a little and I have no idea whether that means anything.
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.
- 1Removed the escalation schedule. There is no published protocol for members…6 comments in this branch · started by u/ledger_mod