Reading the retatrutide phase 2 data properly rather than the headline, and the 24% figure is doing a lot of work that the confidence interval does not support as firmly as people think.
For anyone tracking the class: GLP-1 alone gets you appetite, GLP-1 plus GIP adds tolerability and lipid handling, and adding glucagon adds expenditure and liver-fat reduction. Each addition also adds a receptor system that can generate side effects.
The narrow version of the question is what the phase 2 dropout pattern implies about how the phase 3 tolerability will read.
Happy to be told the question itself is wrong.
Answering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
Dr.RaviCardio said:Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent…
Dr.RaviCardio has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. The phase 2 numbers were about 24% mean weight loss at 48 weeks on the top dose, with the curve still descending at the end of the study. A curve that has not flattened is a real finding, but it also means the true plateau is unknown, and phase 2 populations are small and selected.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL Biochempam_columbus said:Reading the retatrutide phase 2 data properly rather than the headline, and the 24% figure is doing a lot of work that the confidence interval does…
Same pattern here, and in the same order.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.