survodutide vs hepatic fat — genuinely asking which matters more
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.
The claim: MASH matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 5 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 13 people measuring the same thing the same way. I have started; my numbers are below. They lean one way but not strongly enough for me to declare victory.
If you have data, post the data. If you have an opinion, flair it as an opinion.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Yeah, glucagon co-agonism is genuinely different.
Small correction: the trial was 23 weeks, not 11. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
MASH claims need the trial and the biopsy endpoint
Phase 18 or 12?
Strongly agree. The safety story is separate.
do not generalise from tirzepatide
do not generalise from tirzepatide
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
Which trial arm?
Strongly agree. The safety story is separate.
not approved, descriptive posts only
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
phase 18 data is interesting, phase 18 will be different
Yeah, glucagon co-agonism is genuinely different.
the safety profile is not just tirzepatide amplified
glucagon injection is a different vector than GLP-1
Which trial arm?
the MASH indication changes the risk calculus
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with dual agonist, not with what you concluded.
- 1not approved, descriptive posts only10 comments in this branch · started by u/liver_enzyme_liz