Splitting this out of the general thread because the answers kept arriving in ones and twos and nobody could see the shape of it.
Reading the retatrutide phase 2 data properly rather than the headline, and the 24% figure is doing a lot of work that the confidence interval does not support as firmly as people think.
The narrow version of the question is what the phase 2 dropout pattern implies about how the phase 3 tolerability will read.
Roughly, people seem to land in one of these:
Say which and say why — the why is the useful half.
This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
Dr.LipidDallas said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Dr.LipidDallas has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. The glucagon component looks paradoxical and is not. Glucagon receptor agonism raises energy expenditure and drives hepatic fatty-acid oxidation, and its hyperglycaemic tendency is offset by the GLP-1 arm's insulin secretagogue effect. Net result: intake down from GLP-1/GIP, expenditure up from glucagon, glycaemia neutral or improved. It is a balancing act, and it is why the liver-fat results are the most interesting part of the dataset.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 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 BiochemSteveThurs said:Reading the retatrutide phase 2 data properly rather than the headline, and the 24% figure is doing a lot of work that the confidence interval does…
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.