[Discussion] we are measuring MASH at the wrong time and calling it noise
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 22 months without either producing anything. What would actually settle it is 5 people measuring the same thing…
Came off after 80 weeks for financial reasons. Regained about a third over the following year. Back on now at a much lower dose.
Slight fix: the number was 95.1, not 94.2. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
phase 4 data is interesting, phase 14 will be different
Came off after 80 weeks for financial reasons.
Disagree on that part. 98.7% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.
Came off after 80 weeks for financial reasons.
Disagree on that part. 98.1% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
the heart rate signal is real in the data
the heart rate signal is real in the data
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 6 weeks to accept.
do not generalise from tirzepatide
not approved, descriptive posts only
Came off after 80 weeks for financial reasons.
Disagree on that part. 97.6% and 97.9% on the same vial is normal.
This is correct. Do not generalise from tirzepatide.