u/noor_hovland

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

Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.

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

one log per person, update it, do not repost

stalled on sema, tried tirz, and the curves were actually different shapes

the dual agonism hits different and that is why people describe it differently

nope, 0.25 counts, it is just not the dose most people stay on

SURMOUNT data is messier than STEP data but the weight loss is there

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

titration speed is food noise plus side effects, period

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 25 weeks to accept.

network selection matters, wrong chain is the expensive typo

Where does the pharmacology data actually come from?

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

Yeah, amylin is doing different work than GLP-1.

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

the 5% discount versus 15% network fees

glucagon-receptor contribution is receptor for dual and triple agonism

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

Strongly agree. Central appetite is real but people overstate it.

The satiety on amylin analogs is described as physically different. GLP-1 reduces appetite noise, amylin does REDEFINE.

Yeah, amylin is doing different work than GLP-1.

Crossposting this to c/insurancefights because the people who need it are not reading this community.