[Discussion] phase 2 is doing more work than we give it credit for
phase 2 is doing more work than we give it credit for. Change my mind, genuinely — I have no stake in being right about this.
The standing caveat, written out properly because it keeps getting compressed into a footnote.
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. That is not a legal formality on this board — it is why there is so little independent data, why the escalation schedules people post are invented, and why nobody here can answer a dosing question.
What this board can usefully do is read the published trials carefully, log independent purity results, and be honest about how thin the evidence base is. Everything else belongs somewhere with a clinician in it.
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.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
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.
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
The injection-site soreness profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
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.
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.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
Left up. It reads the phase 2 paper carefully and it is honest about the intervals.
small trial, big effect, wide error bars
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?
the energy-expenditure story is mechanistically interesting and clinically unproven
- 1Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range. Phase 3 estimates it…7 comments in this branch · started by u/halima_mbeki