VendorMark said:Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then…
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. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
labquiet_amy said:I would rather people stopped quoting the 24% as if it were a licensed outcome.
Coming at labquiet_amy’s question from a different direction. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
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 BiochemA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
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.