u/ferran_dahlberg

This is correct. Rodent data is investigational, not predictive.

the GL Biochem situation resolved, logged it here as resolved

do not extrapolate rodent data to human dosing without saying so

Slight fix: the number was 98.7, not 99.3.

Adding to this: constipation is doing more work than the comment implies.

Yeah, the incretin mechanism is doing the work here.

the lesson is the point

Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.

give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body

the half-life is appetite, affects steady state timing

This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.

external review is the appeal after insurance says no

evidence required, dated screenshots, metadata, order records, or independent test

protein targets in g/kg

phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial

Disagree on that part. 97.4% and 98.4% on the same vial is normal.

Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?

formulary exclusions are negotiable sometimes

Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?

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

resistance training is protein not optional