[Discussion] glucagon is doing more work than we give it credit for
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom.
I have been tracking survodutide against ApoB for 25 weeks because I could not find anyone who had. The correlation is weaker than I expected, which is itself mildly interesting given how confidently people link the two in here.
Caveats up front: one person, one lab, one assay, no control, and I changed my training in the middle of it, which was stupid.
tl;dr: probably real, definitely smaller than the threads imply, and not worth reorganising your week around.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Which trial arm?
glucagon co-agonism has a different safety story
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual moisture, your "10mg" is not 10mg of peptide.
the heart rate signal is real in the data
rodent dual agonist is investigation only
glucagon injection is a different vector than GLP-1
Strongly agree. The safety story is separate.
phase 13 data is interesting, phase 14 will be different
Strongly agree.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
rodent dual agonist is investigation only
Strongly agree. The safety story is separate.
The thing nobody prepared me for was the quiet. Not the appetite, the quiet. The constant negotiation in my head about food just stopped.
Not to be pedantic but MASH and glucagon are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
the MASH indication changes the risk calculus
Strongly agree.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
- 1Strongly agree. The safety story is separate.5 comments in this branch · started by u/teodor_szabo
- 2Strongly agree. The safety story is separate.4 comments in this branch · started by u/annika_fonseca