help me understand triple agonist, I have read the wiki twice
Asking properly rather than in a comment on somebody else’s thread: help me understand triple agonist, I have read the wiki twice.
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.
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.
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.
Screenshot none of this. Read the whole thread, including the parts where I am told I am wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Sent a vial to VendorInvestigate out of curiosity. Result was 98.6% against a claimed 98.5%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
Are you tracking heart rate at all?
How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.
Agreed, and the framing that helps is: this is a phase 2 compound with phase 3 running. Everything else is inference.
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
That reads as a titration plan for an unapproved compound. This board cannot host that and it should not want to.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
Same read. The energy-expenditure mechanism is the interesting bit and it is not established in humans at scale.
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason