Dr.NateNeph said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
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.
One concrete data point for the thread. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Dr.GastroMayo said:I would rather people stopped quoting the 24% as if it were a licensed outcome.
Coming at Dr.GastroMayo’s question from a different direction. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
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 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?
Reporting back.
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.