[Lab] 2th independent test on BCH — 97.8% on a claimed 97.5%, and the trend is the interesting part
Title says it — 2th independent test on BCH — 97.8% on a claimed 97.5%, and the trend is the interesting part — so here is the boring supporting detail that makes it worth anything.
The relevant figures are 97.8% and 97.5%, 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.
If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.
- BCBCH source pageBachem Holding (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. · Suzhou · 89% here, rank 19 · shop at bachemholding.com →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
Standing reminder in every thread here: unapproved compound, research material is not for human use, nothing on this board is medical advice.
[deleted]
The injection-site soreness profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
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.
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?
Sent a vial to Janoshik out of curiosity. Result was 97.8% against a claimed 97.0%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
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.
Glucagon receptor agonism is associated with increased energy expenditure and with hepatic effects.
employer_carveout is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
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.
Cosigning the escalation point. Almost every difficult report on this board is from somebody who went up quickly.
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
What do you think the glucagon component is adding, specifically?
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.
the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits
Increases in heart rate have been reported across this receptor class. The magnitude and clinical significance are exactly what phase 3 is powered to establish.
- 1Standing reminder in every thread here: unapproved compound, research…11 comments in this branch · started by u/incretin_ivy
- 2Glucagon receptor agonism is associated with increased energy expenditure…7 comments in this branch · started by u/employer_carveout