biopsy is the most under-discussed thing in c/bloodwork
Something I noticed reading old threads that I have not seen said out loud. The advice on hepatic fat 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…
phase 16 data is interesting, phase 24 will be different
phase 16 data is interesting, phase 24 will be different
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
rodent dual agonist is investigation only
glucagon co-agonism has a different safety story
My version of this: I was so worried about the injection that I put it off for eleven days. The injection is the easiest part.
the heart rate signal is real in the data
Yeah, glucagon co-agonism is genuinely different.
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
the MASH indication changes the risk calculus
glucagon co-agonism has a different safety story
Phase 16 or 33?
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.