monotherapy did work for me, just slower and smaller

assay over certificate

an assay is worth more here than a supplier certificate, and that is true everywhere but more so here, unremarkable, which is useful

ohh i see, combination is the interesting bit

the effect built more slowly for me than i expected and i nearly gave up on it at week 23, nobody here is your clinician

no difference i could see

the slower titration in here is community habit as much as anything, the trials had their own schedule, happy to be pointed at better work

n of one cannot separate

the numbers everyone quotes come from the combination, so comparing them to monotherapy logs is unfair, held lightly, as always

new delivery

careful framing first two VendorInvestigate results on the same WWB lot came back 98.1 and 99, closer than i expected, fewer data points here than next door

is there a reason this is discussed less than the others

independent result question the honest position is that the published work is promising and the evidence base is younger than the licensed molecules, not medical advice

monotherapy was underwhelming for me and i say that as someone who wanted it to work

the nausea felt different rather than less, more fullness and less of the queasy wave

i was sceptical about monotherapy and after 15 months im still sceptical, just less so

cagrisema thats it

honestly asking titration habits here are borrowed from the glp-1 channels, which is a habit rather than a finding, thats just me