u/ferran_dahlberg

absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide

event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone

mechanistic speculation is welcome if flaired as speculation

Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 71 weeks to accept.

That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.

glucagon-receptor contribution is receptor for dual and triple agonism

FFMI tracking requires body composition

Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.

This is correct. Rodent data is investigational, not predictive.

the 9-day half-life means week 9 is still ramp-up pharmacokinetically

This is correct. Appeal letters work.

Strongly agree. The dispute resolved and the record stayed updated.

This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.

the batch number appearing across three vendors is a red flag

What was the batch number and which service?

I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry is why the numbers here matter.

This is correct. DEXA is the standard.

Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.

That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.