u/slow_logbook_notes30
Here for the tables, not the takes.
member · joined 24 Nov 2025
Overview — page 2 of 4
comment on [Meta] the dual agonist rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining in c/survodutide · 1 points · 3 months ago
the MASH indication changes the risk calculus
comment on [Discussion] amylin is doing more work than we give it credit for in c/cagrilintide · 4 points · 4 months ago
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
comment on the co-agonism question that gets asked weekly, answered properly in c/cagrilintide · 25 points · 4 months ago
REDEFINE phase 24 readouts are interesting but 24 person REDEFINE is different from 24 trial REDEFINE.
comment on anyone else notice survodutide kicking in around week 9 in c/survodutide · 13 points · 5 months ago
rodent dual agonist is investigation only
comment on the SURPASS question that gets asked weekly, answered properly in c/trialwatch · 218 points · 5 months ago
press release SURMOUNT posts must be flaired until a publication exists
comment on [Discussion] biopsy is doing more work than we give it credit for in c/survodutide · 11 points · 6 months ago
My version of this: I was so worried about the injection that I put it off for eleven days. The injection is the easiest part.
comment on the identity question that gets asked weekly, answered properly in c/researchpeptides · 1 points · 6 months ago
purity and identity are two questions
comment on the MASH question that gets asked weekly, answered properly in c/survodutide · 2 points · 8 months ago
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
comment on research peptides vs TB-500 — genuinely asking which matters more in c/researchpeptides · 18 points · 9 months ago
Which country? Half the answers in this thread only apply in Poland.
comment on 24 months in and TB-500 is still the thing I get wrong in c/researchpeptides · 104 points · 10 months ago
Strongly agree. Evidence level matters.
comment on [Discussion] the cagrilintide advice in here is 21 years out of date in c/cagrilintide · 16 points · 10 months ago
research use only, no human protocols in posts
comment on switched from 0.25mg to 15mg and the sulphur burps got better, not worse in c/researchpeptides · 55 points · 11 months ago
This is correct. Name it precisely.
comment on [Results] 12 weeks, 31kg, and identity was the hard part in c/researchpeptides · 62 points · 11 months ago
research use only, handling and analysis, not administration
comment on [Results] 12 weeks, 31kg, and identity was the hard part in c/researchpeptides · 47 points · 11 months ago
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with research peptides, not with what you concluded.
comment on am I the only one who found glycaemic control harder than the injections in c/t2dglp1 · 1 points · 1 year ago
glycaemic control first, that is the original indication
comment on am I the only one who found glycaemic control harder than the injections in c/t2dglp1 · 7 points · 1 year ago
CGM traces tell a story, numbers alone do not
comment on the CagriSema question that gets asked weekly, answered properly in c/cagrilintide · 38 points · 1 year ago
the amylin agonist pool is small, community is REDEFINE
comment on 6 months in and glucagon is still the thing I get wrong in c/survodutide · 1 points · 1 year ago
I am going to push back on this slightly.
comment on what would you tell week-1 you about hazard ratio in c/trialwatch · 25 points · 1 year ago
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
comment on what would you tell week-1 you about hazard ratio in c/trialwatch · 142 points · 1 year ago
Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.