came off reta after 14 weeks. here is the honest version.
came off reta after 14 weeks. here is the honest version. Not a hot take, just something I have not seen said plainly here.
The relevant figures are 14 weeks, and they come from the same log I have kept the whole time.
Watched heart rate on a wearable across twelve weeks because the threads said to. It moved a little and I have no idea whether that means anything.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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 readout ran to 48 weeks in a few hundred participants with a slow escalation.
lurker_for_years is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
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
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use, and that is a statement of fact rather than a disclaimer.
[removed by moderator]
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
Went up slowly, deliberately, because everything on this board says the escalation is where trouble lives. Uneventful so far and I am not going to pretend that is a finding.
This. The phase 2 result was genuinely large and it was also 48 weeks in a few hundred people.
Careful with the rankings. A phase 2 result and a phase 3 result are not on the same evidential footing and cannot be listed in one table.
Where the evidence actually stands, since every thread here assumes a different answer.
Phase 2 reported a large mean body weight change at 48 weeks across a few hundred participants with a slow, protocol-driven escalation. The effect size was striking. The confidence intervals were wide, the population was small, and the duration was under a year.
Phase 3 is running. Until it reports, everything else — including the ranking arguments this board loves — is extrapolation from a small study. That is not a criticism of the compound; it is a description of the evidence.
small trial, big effect, wide error bars
- 1Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only…8 comments in this branch · started by u/sena_teixeira