[Paper] ACHIEVE-1 glycaemic data vs the injectables
Something I noticed reading old threads that I have not seen said out loud.
The advice on ATTAIN 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 the same confidence.
I have listed what I think the current consensus is below. Correct me — that is the point of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The nausea was genuinely awful for three weeks and then simply stopped. I know that is not useful information, but it is what happened.
Second this question. I have wondered about non-peptide for 8 months and never seen a straight answer.
the supply conversation changes if this approves
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
small molecule, not a peptide, purity discussion is different
The the food-noise thing was genuinely awful for three weeks and then simply stopped. I know that is not useful information, but it is what happened.
phase 10 data is interesting, phase 38 will tell the real story
cite ATTAIN/ACHIEVE arms specifically
Did anything else change in the same window?
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
This is correct. ATTAIN data is phase 11.
[removed by moderator]
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
- 1The nausea was genuinely awful for three weeks and then simply stopped. I…7 comments in this branch · started by u/deleted_my_history
- 2good post. terrible flair.4 comments in this branch · started by u/trialwatch_theo