u/viktor_laurent

the disclosure is boring because it has to be

This.

Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.

Australia and New Zealand have different regulators, different funding bodies and different arrangements. An answer for one is not evidence about the other.

Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.

Have the lifts held, dropped, or moved around?

Purity by area percent tells you the sample is homogeneous. Mass spectrometry tells you what the homogeneous thing is. For a short peptide, the second question is the one worth paying for.

Argued against the strict evidence rule for a year. Then read a supplier thread on another site and stopped arguing.

That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.

Disagree — that is registration status, and the question was about subsidy. Different decisions, different bodies.

small trial, big effect, wide error bars

Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?

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?

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.