The linked design document talks about them testing a wide variety of formulations with different salt bridges, etc., at two different pH levels specifically because of trying to strike a balance between solubility, efficiency, and resistance to fibril formation. They have data on fibril formation at a pH of 7.5 - the study specifically looked at it. They could have chosen that as the 'standard' for the final version.
That doesn't sound like a good solution. The bottom-line question is whether something is safe enough to try. I wouldn't trust ChatGPT on any question involving safety.
i think the concern is that they've made it safe with their compounding process but the rest of us may not be able to replicate that process on our ownSo, if it wasn't safe, would they continue to get approval?
If you believe one camp, No. If you believe the other it doesn't matter. So either way that seems pointless.
It would hardly be the first time big Pharma brought a dangerous weight loss drug to market.So, if it wasn't safe, would they continue to get approval?
Fair point. Will just continue to roll the dice.
Fair point. Will just continue to roll the dice.
Where is the p2p market
stacking sema and reta is just going to give you worse results than just using reta. they are competing for the same receptor.
According to some chart I’ve seen on this forum, Reta has very low GLP-1 activity, compared to Sema. Anecdotally people have said Reta doesn’t provide as much appetite suppression as Sema, or even Tirz. Using Sema to make up for Reta’s lower GLP-1 activity seems to make sense to me.
You (and many others) are making it out to be much simpler than it is. Adding in the sema just kicks the reta off the receptor and you're not using the reta to its full effect. They mix with albumin and cause completely unstudied interactions. Do whatever you want though, it's probably not dangerous but almost certainly less effective. There is a reason they picked the balance for reta that they did.
Acetic acid
