[Question] why is reta purity testing so much more variable between labs
Genuine question, and the title is the question: why is reta purity testing so much more variable between labs.
The constipation profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
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.
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
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.
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
Is that the 48-week figure or an earlier readout?
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
Is that the 48-week figure or an earlier readout?
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
Yes — the glucagon arm is what makes it a different proposition rather than a stronger version of the others.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
Sent a vial to VendorInvestigate out of curiosity. Result was 99.1% against a claimed 98.5%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
Sent a vial to VendorInvestigate out of curiosity.
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
What do you think the glucagon component is adding, specifically?
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.
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
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.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
Left up. It reads the phase 2 paper carefully and it is honest about the intervals.
- 1Sent a vial to VendorInvestigate out of curiosity. Result was 99.1% against…9 comments in this branch · started by u/iman_castellanos
- 2Glucagon receptor agonism is associated with increased energy expenditure…6 comments in this branch · started by u/dead_space_doug