[Meta] the retatrutide rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining
the retatrutide rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining. Short post, long comment section, probably.
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.
Sent a vial to VendorInvestigate out of curiosity. Result was 98.1% against a claimed 97.5%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
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.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use and nothing here should be read as a recommendation to use it.
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.
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.
This. The phase 2 result was genuinely large and it was also 48 weeks in a few hundred people.
This.
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
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.
wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
Standing reminder in every thread here: unapproved compound, research material is not for human use, nothing on this board is medical advice.
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
Yes — the glucagon arm is what makes it a different proposition rather than a stronger version of the others.
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
The fatigue profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
Not convinced. You are attributing a week of constipation to the glucagon arm when the escalation rate alone would explain it.
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
the energy-expenditure story is mechanistically interesting and clinically unproven
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.
Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range. Phase 3 estimates it precisely in a bigger population and catches what phase 2 was too small to see. Treating them as the same tier of evidence is the recurring error here.
- 1Not convinced. You are attributing a week of constipation to the glucagon…6 comments in this branch · started by u/aa_analysis_andy