[Lab] GGPeps survo — VendorInvestigate came back 97.9% against a claimed 97.0%
GGPeps survo — VendorInvestigate came back 97.9% against a claimed 97.0%, and before anyone asks: same batch throughout, single submission, no cherry-picking between services.
97.9% and 97.0% — those are the numbers, and they are the ones I am willing to defend.
Bought small because the evidence base is early. That is the only defensible position I could construct.
What this compound is actually being developed for, since the boards treat it as a weight-loss molecule with a footnote.
It is a dual GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist, and the glucagon arm links to hepatic fat and energy expenditure. The headline programme is metabolic liver disease, with endpoints scored on biopsy rather than on a scale.
That matters for how the data should be read. A histological response rate in a biopsy-confirmed population answers a very different question from a mean weight change in an obesity trial, and quoting one in place of the other — which happens in nearly every thread here — is not a comparison.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
- GGGGPeps source pageNantong Guangyuan Chemical Co., Ltd. · Nantong · 88% here, rank 21 · shop at ggpeps.net →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
Assumed the weight numbers were the point and was corrected. They are secondary to what this is being developed for.
Independent result logged. There are almost none for this compound, so it is genuinely valuable.
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.
It is a dual agonist at the GLP-1 and glucagon receptors. The glucagon arm is associated with increased energy expenditure and with effects on hepatic fat, which is why the development programme is oriented towards liver disease.
What does the tolerability table say at that dose?
Push back: the evidence here is phase 2, in a specific population, and it does not support a general ranking.
That is an escalation schedule for an unapproved compound and this board does not host those.
Not convinced. Imaging-based fat fraction is not the same as a histological response and the paper is explicit about that.
Same. Very thin independent data on this one, which should make everybody here more tentative than they are.
biopsy-confirmed is not the same as imaging-suggested
a liver endpoint is not a weight endpoint with better marketing
Has anyone posted an independent purity result for this compound?
Is that a weight number from a different programme?
Yes — nothing containing this is approved anywhere, which is the first fact and usually the last one mentioned.
Agreed that the endpoint definitions matter enormously and almost nobody reads them before quoting a response rate.
research material is not approved for human use, which is why the clinical record here is thin
Are you reading the publication or a summary?
dual GLP-1 and glucagon agonist, and the glucagon arm is the story
Which endpoint — histological response, fibrosis improvement, or fat fraction?
Which phase and which arm are you quoting?
Small fix — dual agonist, GLP-1 and glucagon. No GIP arm in this molecule.
- 1Has anyone posted an independent purity result for this compound?10 comments in this branch · started by u/renzo_asante
- 2Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with…9 comments in this branch · started by u/nora_oyelaran