🍪 The GLP Lounge uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsClinical Trials & ResearchCan we talk about how SLOW the FDA is — my results so far Page 8

Can we talk about how SLOW the FDA is — my results so far

NurseAsh_DET Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 7:47 PM 43 replies 1,294 viewsPage 8 of 9
nancy_portland
Member
345
1,567
Aug 2024
Portland, ME
Mar 22, 2026 at 4:22 PM#36
Dr.EndoIndy said:
The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.

17 15DebRD_ATL, KristenIndy, MarkLI_maint and 14 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
SleepFixSam
Member
212
678
Nov 2024
Hawaii
Mar 29, 2026 at 3:08 PM#37
Dr.EndoIndy said:
The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

18 16ingrid_STO, pete_nash, hank_denver and 15 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
LabKate
Senior Member
2,678
11,234
Jan 2024
Oregon
Apr 5, 2026 at 1:50 PM#38

One concrete data point for the thread. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

Last edited: Apr 5, 2026 at 4:50 PM
19 17Dr.SleepRoch, laura_annarbor, JenMemphis and 16 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards

Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.

Shop Reference Standards
laura_annarbor
Member
189
890
Dec 2024
Ann Arbor, MI
Apr 12, 2026 at 12:27 PM#39

One thing that is still open after Dr.EndoIndy’s answer:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

Last edited: Apr 12, 2026 at 2:27 PM
20 18laura_annarbor, JenMemphis, pat_auckland and 17 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
nick_SD_fit
Member
278
1,234
Sep 2024
San Diego, CA
Apr 19, 2026 at 11:01 AM#40
LabKate said:
For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.

42 15SurmountFan_IN, PeptideChemSF, A1cHero_PHX and 39 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Similar Threads

FLOW trial: semaglutide renal outcomes — NEJM publication review14 replies
SELECT trial: semaglutide 2.4mg cardiovascular outcomes — 4yr data9 replies
TRIUMPH program (retatrutide) — Phase 3 trial design and endpoints13 replies
Orforglipron ATTAIN trials — oral non-peptide GLP-1 agonist8 replies
CagriSema (amylin + semaglutide) — REDEFINE Phase 3 results20 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register