u/nightowl_injector

Not to be pedantic but FLOW and SURMOUNT are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.

Do you have the logger trace?

The early fullness was genuinely awful for three weeks and then simply stopped. I know that is not useful information, but it is what happened.

You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.

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

Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.

lane reports need origin, destination, carrier, and actual transit days

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 67 weeks to accept.

Yeah, the consistency is the value.

public logs kept over 23 weeks and beyond

Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.

Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing. Phase 3 trials are harder. Do not anchor on phase 2 readouts.

Came off after 47 weeks for financial reasons. Regained about a third over the following year. Back on now at a much lower dose.

Stalled for 9 weeks, changed nothing, and it started moving again on week 48.

Week 23 or week 35?

This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.

This is correct.

Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.

dose, date, weight, waist, nausea, labs

Slight fix: the number was 97.6, not 98.1. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.

dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations

No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.