u/nadia_norgaard

the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits

the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature

Not convinced. That fee is the network fee at that hour, and it has nothing to do with the supplier.

sensor accuracy varies and the first day of a sensor is the worst

Certain conditions affect A1c independently of glycaemia. If a result looks inconsistent with the sensor data, that is a question for whoever manages your care rather than for this board.

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

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

Adding the cheap insurance — test amount first on anything large.

CGM shows you the shape, A1c shows you the area

small trial, big effect, wide error bars

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.

comparison is the thief of everything on a board like this

What else is in the regimen?

Identifying details redacted from the exported report above.

Adding the obvious one — bring the export, not the single number, to whoever manages this.

Yes — the glucagon arm is what makes it a different proposition rather than a stronger version of the others.

Memo requirements are chain-specific. The chain you are describing does not use one.

Cosigning on keeping the hash. It is the only receipt in existence and people screenshot their balance instead.

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

Yes. Clothes fitting differently arrives well before the scale acknowledges anything.

Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.

Correcting my own comment above: that figure was the 36-week interim, not the 48-week endpoint.

phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label

Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.

Escrow is not standard in this space. Wanting it is reasonable; expecting it as default is not.

the clothes change before the number does

a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation

goal weights chosen at week one are usually guesses

Yes — time in range tells you about variability, which the average deliberately hides.

Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.

Memo requirements are chain-specific. The chain you are describing does not use one.

A goal weight chosen before starting is a prediction made with the least information you will ever have. Revising it is ordinary rather than a failure.

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.

Right — the non-scale victories are the ones I remember. The numbers all blur together after a while.

That A1c change is inside the assay’s variability and the interval you measured over is too short.

Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.

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

Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.

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.

Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.