In Novo’s Own Words: Degradation of Amylin Analogs Such as Cagrilintide (and How to Test For It)

You only gave two possibilities, ignorant or ulterior motives. Even in my ignorance I know there's more than two possibilities. You've punctuated an interesting read with a contentious finale. If you disagree with that you're either ignorant (you've demonstrated your not) or you have ulterior motives.
I plead ignorance.
 
what kind of answer are you looking for?

Someone shared to Discord a link to the recent fibril post here. I reviewed it, and thought, these guys might appreciate a thorough examination of everything that Novo had to say about the topic.
You clearly are someone involved in this community but i don’t recognize your screen name. This obviously isn’t your first venture onto a peptide forum. Either you’re on servers I’m not on, which is of course possible, or you’re using an alt. My guess is probably an alt, so, who are you?
 
You clearly are someone involved in this community but i don’t recognize your screen name. This obviously isn’t your first venture onto a peptide forum. Either you’re on servers I’m not on, which is of course possible, or you’re using an alt. My guess is probably an alt, so, who are you?
This is my only name. I just now tried to tag you on PTDS but it looks like you were kicked out?
 
I must have conjured him when I made this remark in another thread just yesterday:

that particular type you sometimes see around these parts—people who consider themselves of above-average intellect so pop off endlessly using lofty language in order to boost that ego. This type loves to cosplay as academics when they "publish whitepapers" and such. Probably not grifters, just self-rightious guys with a savior complex
 
@secretweapon sorry who are you? You just joined today to post this, and your conclusion is that people who disagree with your assessment have ulterior motives?
The other significant omission you made was the "based on a test" part, referring to anyone pushing a test result conducted without using SEC at a bare minimum.

This is not just about the opinions held by randos.
 
The other significant omission you made was the "based on a test" part, referring to anyone pushing a test result conducted without using SEC at a bare minimum.

This is not just about the opinions held by randos.
1733027200270.png


Don't they speak to the different pH levels (4 and 7.5) while subjecting Cagri to mechanical stress?

And they couldn't form any fibrils? Are you saying that this is incorrect and they didn't use the right equipment to test for formation of harmful molecules?
 
View attachment 4063

Don't they speak to the different pH levels (4 and 7.5) while subjecting Cagri to mechanical stress?

And they couldn't form any fibrils? Are you saying that this is incorrect and they didn't use the right equipment to test for formation of harmful molecules?
Fibrils are of secondary importance in this discussion. You could almost leave them out of it.

The real toxic species are oligomers. Oligomers eventually become fibrils, but they raise a lot of hell on the way.

And yes, they subjected many different amylin analogues to mechanical stress to see which ones fibrillate. Fibrils are a lot easier to detect than oligomers.

Two important points about those tests:

1. Almost every single amylin analogue fibrillated at pH 7.5 (including cagrilintide). The only one that didn't was rejected for low potency.
2. Many of the amylin analogues did *not* fibrillate at pH 4.0 (not just cagrilintide).
 
Really wish we'd spend more time focused on what the OP has written and backed up with scientific evidence, rather than the OP himself.

Because this shit is pretty scary, I know we're used to all sorts of peptides of unknown benefit or harm, but here it seems we have a peptide with a likely known harm.
I sure thought that was strange. I took myself out of the equation by making it all about direct Novo quotes and people still want to shoot the messenger.
 
Back
Top