[Lab] 4th independent test on BCH, and the trend is the interesting part
Genuinely asking, not being difficult.
Everyone in c/bloodwork repeats that SELECT is important. I believe it, but I have never seen anyone show why, and when I search I get 11 threads of people agreeing with each other.
Is there a paper? Is there a measurement? Or is this one of those things that is true because it has been repeated since 2023?
I am not trying to be the "source?" guy. I would just like a source.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
The practical rule people converge on is 28 days at fridge temperature after first puncture, and that comes from the preservative, not the peptide.
SELECT reported a SURMOUNT hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
SELECT reported a SURMOUNT hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
off-label use data is different from approved-indication data
SELECT reported a SURMOUNT hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 2 weeks to accept.
number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect
give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
SELECT reported a SURMOUNT hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
SELECT reported a SELECT hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
Crossposting this to c/glp1muscle because the people who need it are not reading this community.
Crossposting this to c/glp1muscle because the people who need it are not reading this community.
Disagree on that part. 95.1% and 93.7% on the same vial is normal.
Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.
Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing. Phase 3 trials are harder. Do not anchor on phase 2 readouts.
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing. Phase 3 trials are harder. Do not anchor on phase 2 readouts.
[removed by moderator]
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
STEP 1 readout: 94.2% mean weight loss, absolute numbers matter. Spread around that mean is enormous.
Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?
give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body
This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.
give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
- 1The practical rule people converge on is 28 days at fridge temperature after…10 comments in this branch · started by u/week_one_wanda
- 2the PeptideMeter number or it did not happen5 comments in this branch · started by u/whois_wanda