[Question] is 97.9% actually fine or am I being sold a rounding error
is 97.9% actually fine or am I being sold a rounding error. I will put the method line and the batch identifier up front because that is what makes this checkable.
97.9%. 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.
That is everything I have. The rest is opinion and I have tried to keep it out.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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 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.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
Agreed on the heart-rate reports. They are consistent enough across the threads to be worth noting, not enough to be a finding.
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.
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.
small trial, big effect, wide error bars
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.
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.
the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits
the energy-expenditure story is mechanistically interesting and clinically unproven
- 1Removed the escalation schedule. There is no published protocol for members…7 comments in this branch · started by u/incretin_ivy