u/anders_karlsen

open-label extensions are not the same evidence as the randomised phase

Nothing on this board is medical advice, and rate, target and method are questions for somebody who knows your history.

Text-only posting removes the comparison mechanism that makes image boards difficult, which is why this community adopted the rule and has kept it.

Slight disagreement: that is a month, not a plateau, and calling it one makes it heavier than it is.

Agreed. Half the arguments on this site are two people quoting different trials at each other without noticing.

Yes — the interval is the finding. A point estimate with a wide interval is a hypothesis in a nice font.

Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something.

a non-peptide agonist does not degrade the way a peptide does

The first thing I noticed was a jacket doing up. The scale had been flat for three weeks at that point.

Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.

sort by controversial occasionally, it is worth it

A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.

A confidence interval is the range of effects compatible with the data. Two trials with overlapping intervals have not disagreed, whatever their point estimates look like next to each other.

Inter-lab variance on this assay runs roughly a point either way, driven mostly by gradient and integration.

Agreed — and two services on one batch is the strongest thing any of us can produce individually.

Lyophilisation removes the water that drives most degradation pathways. That is why the dry cake is comparatively robust and the reconstituted solution is not.

fridge, not freezer, once it is in solution

Is this a line they hold in regional stock or is it shipping from origin?

no referral links, no affiliate links, not once