i would rather this channel was small and careful

bloods rather than scales is the only tracking that adds anything to what is already known, thin evidence base

people here go in smaller steps because the evidence is thinner, and that is caution rather than pharmacology, standards apply harder here

being careful here phase 2 doses are published and theyre not far off what people here run, coincidence rather than plan

this is what i meant, phase two is what we have

stepping in 12 increments instead of doubling is the only thing i would change if i started again, an assay would tell you more than a certificate

the published evidence is phase 2 dose ranging. anyone quoting a ladder is extrapolating

genuine question people insist on small steps because the side effects arrive faster than on the other two

what would change your mind about using this at all, or have i misread it

there is no long term safety data, phase 2 and an ongoing phase 3 programme is what exists

assay came back phase 2 was still trending at the end which is why the phase 3 readout matters more than usual, i would rather be careful than confident here

is there any long term safety data at all or is that the honest gap

phase 2 only

strict channel so the honest position is this has less human evidence behind it than anything else discussed here, research use only

evidence standards in this channel are strict on purpose, because the evidence base is thin, not approved for human use

anyone here holding at a low step deliberately and for how long