[Discussion] can we stop arguing about retatrutide until somebody posts a number
can we stop arguing about retatrutide until somebody posts a number, and I want the answer with the reasoning attached rather than just the conclusion.
Where the evidence actually stands, since every thread here assumes a different answer.
Phase 2 reported a large mean body weight change at 48 weeks across a few hundred participants with a slow, protocol-driven escalation. The effect size was striking. The confidence intervals were wide, the population was small, and the duration was under a year.
Phase 3 is running. Until it reports, everything else — including the ranking arguments this board loves — is extrapolation from a small study. That is not a criticism of the compound; it is a description of the evidence.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
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
Standing reminder in every thread here: unapproved compound, research material is not for human use, nothing on this board is medical advice.
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.
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.
Right, and it bears repeating that nothing here is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
Glucagon receptor agonism is associated with increased energy expenditure and with hepatic effects. That is a mechanistic story with strong preclinical support and limited phase 2 human data.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
Sent a vial to Medutest out of curiosity. Result was 97.4% against a claimed 97.0%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
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.
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.
Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?
Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
The nausea profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.