went too fast on reta and my resting HR told me before i noticed
went too fast on reta and my resting HR told me before i noticed. Change my mind, genuinely — I have no stake in being right about this.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
The fatigue profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
best — the order this archive was captured in
It is a triple agonist at the GLP-1, GIP and glucagon receptors. The glucagon arm is the genuinely novel component and it is the one with the least human outcome data behind it.
Right, and it bears repeating that nothing here is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
Independent purity testing on this compound is thin compared with the older molecules, simply because fewer members have paid for it. Fewer results means wider uncertainty, not a verdict.
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.
the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits
Removed the escalation schedule. There is no published protocol for members to follow and inventing one here is exactly what this board does not do.
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
Cosigning the escalation point. Almost every difficult report on this board is from somebody who went up quickly.
The phase 2 readout ran to 48 weeks in a few hundred participants with a slow escalation. Both the size and the duration matter when people quote the headline number.
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
Not convinced. You are attributing a week of food noise to the glucagon arm when the escalation rate alone would explain it.
Not convinced.
baseline_drifter is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
Sent a vial to PeptideMeter out of curiosity. Result was 97.7% against a claimed 97.5%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
baseline_drifter is right about the escalation being the variable.
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
Disagree with this specific inference.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part
Is that the 48-week figure or an earlier readout?
Has anyone posted an independent test on this compound recently?
- 1Right, and it bears repeating that nothing here is approved anywhere and…6 comments in this branch · started by u/ferran_krastev