help me understand FLOW, I have read the wiki twice
FLOW. That is the whole post, but I will justify it.
Everything else people worry about in c/coa is downstream of it. Titration speed, reflux, the endless dose arguments — most of it resolves if you sort FLOW out first, and almost nobody does.
I say this having got it wrong for 22 months. My fasting insulin was the thing that eventually made me pay attention, which is a stupid way to learn a lesson that was in the sidebar the whole time.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
Crossposting this to c/bpc157 because the people who need it are not reading this community.
[removed by moderator]
the 2 week readout is different from the 30 week readout
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
the 18 week readout is different from the 6 week readout
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
the 18 week readout is different from the 6 week readout
Disagree on that part. 97.9% and 97.6% on the same vial is normal.
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations
the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the STEP endpoints
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with endpoint, not with what you concluded.
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
- 1the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story9 comments in this branch · started by u/iman_castellanos
- 2absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide4 comments in this branch · started by u/naomi_ekstrom