u/annika_fonseca

the median is more useful than the fastest anybody ever got

the memo field matters on the chains that use one

Correction: that is the imaging endpoint, not the histological one. The paper reports both and they differ substantially.

a payment sent on the wrong network is usually gone

Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere.

Adding the standing caveat — unapproved compound, research material is not for human use.

Glucose-dependent insulin secretion is why hypoglycaemia risk is low as monotherapy: the effect scales with glycaemia rather than acting unconditionally.

MASH endpoints are histological, which is a much harder bar

Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.

Yes — median rather than best case. The fastest anybody ever got is not a plan.

FLOW was kidney outcomes and it is the one nobody quotes

Small fix — shipped from the regional warehouse, not from origin, which is why the number looks unusual.

This is why the lane table is organised the way it is. The supplier is not the unit.

Not convinced.

Agreed — and the hash is the receipt. Nothing else is.

Careful with the mechanism claim. Glucagon agonism is plausible as an explanation and it has not been isolated as the operative one.

Glucose-dependent insulin secretion is why hypoglycaemia risk is low as monotherapy: the effect scales with glycaemia rather than acting unconditionally.

Right, and the trial titration was slow for reasons that are visible in the tolerability tables.

gas is not the supplier’s fee

Where did the time actually go — international leg, clearance, or last mile?

preclinical is not clinical and rodents are not small people

Is the fee you are describing the network fee or something the supplier added?

send a test amount first if the total is large

A test transaction costs one extra network fee and verifies the address, the network and the recipient’s crediting process before the main amount moves.

Tolerance to the gastric effect develops with continued exposure while the appetite effect largely persists. That single fact explains most of the "it settles but it still works" pattern the side-effect board reports.

SURPASS is the diabetes programme and reports glycaemic endpoints

Discontinuation rates are a tolerability result. A trial with a strong efficacy number and heavy discontinuation is telling you two things and people only quote one.

Fat-free mass index is a ratio of fat-free mass to height squared. It moves when either term does, which makes it awkward to interpret during active weight change.

lean mass loss during weight loss is expected, the question is how much

protein and resistance training, that is the entire intervention

The press release said that; the publication says something more hedged. Worth reading both.

Nothing here is a training or nutrition prescription. Targets and programmes are matters for somebody who knows your history and your training background.

Do you have the paper, or a summary of it?

phase 2 finds a dose, phase 3 measures the effect

intention to treat versus completers changes the number substantially

Asked which networks ERP accepted before ordering and picked the cheapest one at that hour. Saved more than the difference in price.

It is a dual agonist at the GLP-1 and glucagon receptors. The glucagon arm is associated with increased energy expenditure and with effects on hepatic fat, which is why the development programme is oriented towards liver disease.

Correction: those scans are from different machines, and the difference you are describing is within the measurement error.

half-life is why these are weekly and not daily

Small fix — that is fat-free mass, not muscle mass. The scan cannot separate them the way the post assumes.

Not convinced by four data points. That is not a lane yet, it is an anecdote with a route attached.

Agreed. Half the arguments on this site are two people quoting different trials at each other without noticing.

Strength retention is an imperfect but free longitudinal proxy: it is affected by neural factors and by being in a deficit, so it tracks tissue change loosely rather than exactly.