[Discussion] the TRIUMPH advice in here is 2 years out of date
Posting this as a discussion rather than a claim: the TRIUMPH advice in here is 2 years out of date.
Figures up front so nobody has to dig: 2 years.
Sent a vial to Medutest out of curiosity. Result was 98.4% against a claimed 97.5%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use and nothing here should be read as a recommendation to use it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
The standing caveat, written out properly because it keeps getting compressed into a footnote.
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. That is not a legal formality on this board — it is why there is so little independent data, why the escalation schedules people post are invented, and why nobody here can answer a dosing question.
What this board can usefully do is read the published trials carefully, log independent purity results, and be honest about how thin the evidence base is. Everything else belongs somewhere with a clinician in it.
The standing caveat, written out properly because it keeps getting compressed into a footnote.
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use, and that is a statement of fact rather than a disclaimer.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
The phase 2 readout ran to 48 weeks in a few hundred participants with a slow escalation. Both the size and the duration matter when people quote the headline number.
Has anyone posted an independent test on this compound recently?
Went up slowly, deliberately, because everything on this board says the escalation is where trouble lives. Uneventful so far and I am not going to pretend that is a finding.
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board