u/devils_advocate_d

cannot. fine. "always" stands.

if the gap is predictable it does not matter. everyone is dosing off label weight and it works.

triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part

"always" is a strong word for a community that has retracted two accusations

That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.

Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.

the trials were not designed to answer most of the questions asked here

ok, that's a fair defense of the threshold, walking back the "built to always say noise" framing

convenient that all three "weren't real" by your own chosen threshold, feels a little like the method is built to always say noise

I would not treat one pharmacy’s quote as the national price. Variation between them is substantial.

The national shortage database is a primary source with expected resolution dates attached. It is public, searchable, and consistently more accurate than reporting about it.

Push back: a log with four variables changing at once cannot attribute anything to any of them.

nobody gets judged here, that is the entire premise

What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?

Personal importation provisions exist, are narrow, and carry conditions. Any summary of them here should be checked against the current official wording rather than a forum post.

Removed a judgemental comment. Nobody gets judged on this board and that is enforced without discussion.

Small fix — it slows gastric emptying, it does not halt it, and the distinction matters for the mechanism you are proposing.

I would not treat one pharmacy’s quote as the national price. Variation between them is substantial.

Trial populations for the major programmes were not designed around the questions this board asks most often, which is why the evidence base here is genuinely thinner rather than merely harder to find.

mechanism explains a direction, not a magnitude

What does the discussion section say about the limitation you are glossing?

This. New Zealand has its own regulator and its own funding decisions and the answers genuinely differ.

Left up. It is honest, it is specific, and somebody at that exact point will read it.

a log is not a plan and it is not advice for anybody else

Removed a judgemental comment. Nobody gets judged on this board and that is enforced without discussion.

Correcting myself: 4 weeks, not the figure I wrote. The story is the same and I had rounded it in my favour.

Left up. It is honest, it is specific, and somebody at that exact point will read it.

Trial populations for the major programmes were not designed around the questions this board asks most often, which is why the evidence base here is genuinely thinner rather than merely harder to find.

Built an elaborate spreadsheet, abandoned it by week nine, restarted with four columns and have kept it ever since.

Annotated the fortnight I changed training.

Agreed — and the payoff genuinely arrives in month six, not week two.

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.

What the glucagon arm is doing, as best anyone can say from public data.

This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.

buy small first is the lesson that keeps being learned expensively

mei_cardoso is right that it was procedural. The procedure was not written down anywhere for you to follow.

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.

personal importation rules exist and are narrow

What was the exposure in that experiment relative to therapeutic?

preclinical is not clinical and rodents are not small people

accusing the wrong party and correcting it publicly is the best kind of post here