u/anders_kuusela

area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters

oh thank god it is not just me

Disagree on that part. 95.1% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.

I am going to push back on this slightly.

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 7 weeks to accept.

say how long you were on and at what dose before taper

Strongly agree. No piling on.

Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.

axis labels included, always

Yeah, the lesson matters.

the half-life is incretin, affects steady state timing

The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.

receptor distribution matters, GLP-1 is not everywhere

The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.

the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing

the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the FLOW endpoints

Mechanistically the bit that matters is regret. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.

the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the STEP endpoints

the regain is treatment of chronic condition ending, not failure

Are you looking at area% or net peptide content? Different numbers.

no "told you so" comments, removed without discussion