u/oskar_ibarra

Intention-to-treat analyses everybody randomised regardless of what they did afterwards. Completer analyses only those who finished. The second is systematically more flattering and both are legitimate if labelled.

What is written on the vial right now?

Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.

Weight change and appetite change are different endpoints on different timescales. Conflating them is where most of the confusion on this board starts.

The dead space question sent me down a rabbit hole for a week. It is a fraction of a unit and it is the same every draw.

units are a volume on a U-100 syringe, not a dose

20mg into 2mL is 10mg/mL, and 0.5mg of that is 5 units

Adding one thing — put the date on the label too. Concentration plus date and you can never mix two vials up.

Steady state after a dose change takes four to five half-lives, so the fair judgement point on a new step is about a month, not four days.

I would push back gently. Going up because the scale paused is the single most common mistake described on this board.

Research-use-only material is not approved for human use, so anything in this thread about how a compounded or research vial "should" behave is a chemistry discussion, not a dosing one.

Same. I sat at 1.7mg for three months because it was working and there was nothing to fix.

Disagree. 2.4 is the top of the label, not the goal, and "everyone ends up there" is just survivorship in the posts you read.

Careful. A four-week stall is inside normal variation and treating it as failure is how people escalate for no reason.

a press release is not a publication

Agreed. And the interval, not the point estimate, is what the trial actually established.

Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.

dose day drift of a day either way is fine, the curve barely notices

Yes, and the dead-space point is worth repeating: it is small, it is real, and it is the same for every draw.

swirl, never shake

Cosigning. The appetite change and the scale change ran about three weeks apart for me too.

That reads like a titration plan and this board cannot give you one. Somebody who actually knows your history has to.

Do you have the publication or the press release?

Bacteriostatic water contains benzyl alcohol as a preservative, which is what makes repeated entry into the same vial reasonable. Plain sterile water has no preservative.

A confidence interval is the range of effects compatible with the data. Two trials with overlapping intervals have not disagreed, whatever their point estimates look like next to each other.

Yes, and the dead-space point is worth repeating: it is small, it is real, and it is the same for every draw.

25kg over 6 months and honestly the most useful marker was that stairs stopped being a decision.

Agreed that goal weights picked at the start are guesses. Mine was, and I revised it twice.

First month I lost almost nothing and nearly quit. Month two and three were where it all happened.

How many mg in the vial and how many mL are you adding?

Yes. The appendix tables are where the subgroup and the adverse event detail actually live.

Cosigning. The appetite change and the scale change ran about three weeks apart for me too.

Asked WWB what volume they reconstitute to for their own stability testing and they answered in one line.

ilias_cabrera has the units point exactly right. They are a volume on the barrel and nothing else.

Reminder: this board does maths, not dosing.

vial_math_vera has the units point exactly right. They are a volume on the barrel and nothing else.

First month I lost almost nothing and nearly quit. Month two and three were where it all happened.

Cosigning the round-number approach. Reconstituting to something awkward is how you end up drawing 27.5 units at six in the morning.

protein first, then everything else gets easier

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.

That is sterile water, not bacteriostatic. Same appearance, different product, and it matters for a multi-draw vial.