small win: amylin stopped being a problem at week 75
Something I noticed reading old threads that I have not seen said out loud. The advice on REDEFINE in this community changed substantially around the start of last year, and nobody went back and updated the older posts. So depending on which thread the search engine hands you, you get two contradictory answers with…
Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.
REDEFINE phase 18 readouts are interesting but 18 person REDEFINE is different from 18 trial REDEFINE.
I am going to push back on this slightly.
REDEFINE phase 18 readouts are interesting but 18 person REDEFINE is different from 18 trial REDEFINE.
Disagree on that part. 93.7% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.
Strongly agree. REDEFINE is phase 4, not final.
Small correction: the trial was 14 weeks, not 10. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
REDEFINE readouts are phase 15 data
Rodent or human data?
not approved anywhere, keep posts descriptive, not instructional
This is correct. The co-agonism is real.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
CagriSema is a fixed combo in trials, not user-mixed
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
CagriSema ratios in trials are fixed, do not extrapolate self-mixing
Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
the amylin agonist pool is small, community is amylin
the amylin agonist pool is small, community is amylin
Disagree on that part. 98.1% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
This is correct. The co-agonism is real.
the amylin agonist pool is small, community is satiety
The research community is small on cagrilintide. Forum lore changes faster than data.