3 months in and triple agonist is still the thing I get wrong
Reporting in. 3 months in and triple agonist is still the thing I get wrong. The numbers the title promised, since a headline without them is worthless: 3 months. Everything below is context for those. Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do. Where…
Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range. Phase 3 estimates it precisely in a bigger population and catches what phase 2 was too small to see. Treating them as the same tier of evidence is the recurring error here.
Watched heart rate on a wearable across twelve weeks because the threads said to. It moved a little and I have no idea whether that means anything.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
Right, and it bears repeating that nothing here is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
Increases in heart rate have been reported across this receptor class. The magnitude and clinical significance are exactly what phase 3 is powered to establish.
Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more heat than anything else here.