Dr.CardioMD said:Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…
I would rather people stopped quoting the 24% as if it were a licensed outcome. It is a phase 2 result in a few hundred participants with no cardiovascular endpoint and no long-term safety data, and this board has a habit of treating pipeline numbers as settled.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Dr.ReproEndo said:I would rather people stopped quoting the 24% as if it were a licensed outcome.
Coming at Dr.ReproEndo’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesGL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer
Est. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemOne thing that is still open after carlos_SATX’s answer:
Why adding glucagon agonism to an anti-obesity drug is not self-defeating, given that glucagon raises blood glucose?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Rereading it with the dropout table open changed my view. I still think it is the most interesting molecule in the pipeline; I no longer think the 24% is the number that will end up on a label.