[Lab] split one vial across Janoshik and Medutest — 95.1% and 99.3%
split one vial across Janoshik and Medutest — 95.1% and 99.3%. I will put the method line and the batch identifier up front because that is what makes this checkable.
95.1% and 99.3%. Those are measured, not estimated, and not rounded up in my favour.
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.
Glucagon receptor agonism is associated with increased energy expenditure and with hepatic effects. That is a mechanistic story with strong preclinical support and limited phase 2 human data.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Left up. It reads the phase 2 paper carefully and it is honest about the intervals.
Left up.
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
Independent purity testing on this compound is thin compared with the older molecules, simply because fewer members have paid for it. Fewer results means wider uncertainty, not a verdict.
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
Right, and it bears repeating that nothing here is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.
comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
Went up slowly, deliberately, because everything on this board says the escalation is where trouble lives. Uneventful so far and I am not going to pretend that is a finding.
[deleted]
Is that the 48-week figure or an earlier readout?
This. The phase 2 result was genuinely large and it was also 48 weeks in a few hundred people.
- 1Independent purity testing on this compound is thin compared with the older…9 comments in this branch · started by u/marta_vanhecke
- 2Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about…7 comments in this branch · started by u/aa_analysis_andy