u/cato_girard

SURMOUNT-1 ran 72 weeks with the top arm around 21% mean body weight change. SURPASS is the diabetes programme and reports glycaemic endpoints, so quoting the two interchangeably is a category error.

the last mile is where most of the variance lives

Disagreeing with this bit: a single slow shipment does not move a lane, it joins the distribution.

Nothing here is medical advice, and the honest version of most of these posts is that they describe consequences rather than causes.

the appetite effect is blunter than sema, in a good way, most weeks

Disagree with the conversion table. There is no validated equivalence between the two molecules and posting one as though there is does real damage.

dual agonist, so the GIP arm is doing something the sema threads will not tell you about

reship policy in writing before you order

Pen or vial? The step sizes available differ and it changes this answer.

Right, and the last mile is where my variance has always come from, not the international leg.

That percentage is body weight change, not body fat. Different measurement, and the distinction gets lost every time.

Have you held a step for longer than the four-week minimum at any point?

Appetite effect for me is flat across seven days. On sema it was a wave. Same person, different molecule.

Agreed that the endpoint definitions matter enormously and almost nobody reads them before quoting a response rate.

Disagree.

This is why the lane table is organised the way it is. The supplier is not the unit.

Correction to my own post above — I said 15mg and I have been on 2.5mg since the spring. Same argument, wrong number.

the trials titrated on a calendar, real people titrate on symptoms

What step are you on and how long have you been there?

MASH endpoints are histological, which is a much harder bar

somebody will read this at the point you were at, and it will help

money lost to a shop with nothing on file is the recurring story

dual GLP-1 and glucagon agonist, and the glucagon arm is the story

A quoted lead time is a commitment you can evaluate. Measuring quoted against actual across several orders tells you more about an operation than the raw speed does.

That was a hold rather than a loss, and it resolved. Updating rather than deleting.

the thing that went wrong is usually procedural, not dramatic

Which week did the appetite change actually land for you?

Saving this one. It is the clearest statement of the stall problem I have read here.

Median transit is the useful statistic. The minimum is a story about one shipment and the mean is dragged around by a single hold.

stopping for financial reasons is not a personal failure

Median transit is the useful statistic. The minimum is a story about one shipment and the mean is dragged around by a single hold.

The escalation schedules in the published protocols are slow and deliberate, and the tolerability tables show why. That is a description of the trials rather than a suggestion for anybody.

Read the phase 2 hepatic paper properly and the endpoint definitions were more interesting than the headline response rate.

glucagon agonism and energy expenditure is the mechanistic thread

Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the whole site, which means any impression about consistency is built on almost nothing.

The distribution matters more than the mean. In the trial population the interquartile spread was wide enough that two honest people can have completely different runs on the same arm.

That percentage is body weight change, not body fat. Different measurement, and the distinction gets lost every time.

Careful with "everyone tolerates it better". The people it did not suit stop posting, which makes this board look calmer than the drug is.

Same experience with the appetite effect being flatter across the week rather than front-loaded.