paige_pharma said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule. Anyone who slowed the ladder for tolerability is on a different, flatter curve, and comparing yourself with the published mean will make you feel like a non-responder when you are not.
Happy to go further on any of that.
zoe_NC said:Albumin binding above 99% is the whole reason weekly dosing works, and it is also why the trough matters more than the peak.
That reframing is the part I needed. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
paige_pharma said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Pushing back on paige_pharma here. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.