u/runa_pires

Are you reading the publication or a summary?

the co-agonism argument is about complementary mechanisms

Agreed — it is an amylin analogue and importing intuitions from the incretin boards produces confident nonsense.

Right, and the compounded supply position moved. Threads from two years ago are describing a different situation.

Which receptor family are you attributing that effect to?

Agreed, and the combination arms are where the interesting numbers actually live.

Is this about registration or about subsidy?

Disagreeing with this bit: that advice predates the change in compounded arrangements.

the interesting data is the combination, not the monotherapy

Agreed. Registration and subsidy are separate decisions and half the confusion here is treating them as one.

do not import US advice into an Australian thread

the Medsafe position in New Zealand is its own thing entirely

phase 3 data will change most of what gets said here

That figure is a private price at one pharmacy, not a national one.

Careful with the mechanism claim. Glucagon agonism is plausible as an explanation and it has not been isolated as the operative one.

Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.

Subsidy criteria and authority requirements are published. For eligibility questions those documents are authoritative and this board is not.

Agreed. Registration and subsidy are separate decisions and half the confusion here is treating them as one.

Not convinced. Amylin signalling is not a GLP-1 pathway and the mechanism you are proposing conflates them.

the price you pay depends on the listing status of your indication

fibrosis improvement without worsening steatohepatitis is the phrase to learn

this board is small because the compound is early

Bought small deliberately because the evidence base is thin. That felt like the only defensible approach.

the shortage listing has an expected resolution date on it