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

[nccane]

I am "in my feelings" because I said the following to you?



After which you cried about me being condescending? Textbook case of projection.

You were so butthurt that you had to go whine about me being "condescending" on another platform.

Never did i cry about anything. The whole comment on condescending with "ey" at the end of it was to point out how similar you and megalith are. And why I think you're the same person. You can't see that. Haha. Someone can go on the Swiss and see the interaction. You will continue to respond even when the conversation doesnt need to continue. You can't walk away. Too much emotion

Again, the emotional intelligence of a 5 year old. Stick with the science, your interactions with people are lacking and hurts your credibility

 

[peptideusername]

Good lord this is painful.

 

[exploitedworkerbee]

@secretweapon is obviously just here to argue in a combative fashion, it is what he does on other platforms as well. I'll permit it in this thread only. Have at it, don't spread to other threads.

 

[secretweapon]

@secretweapon is obviously just here to argue in a combative fashion, it is what he does on other platforms as well. I'll permit it in this thread only. Have at it, don't spread to other threads.

No, I'm here to talk science. Are you?

 

[secretweapon]

@secretweapon is obviously just here to argue in a combative fashion, it is what he does on other platforms as well.

Do you lie about people on other platforms too or just this one?

In response to @nccane on that other platform, someone had this to say:

I’m appreciating @secretweapon sharing a lot of this info. He’s never been insulting or arrogant. He cites tons of research and simply replies and posts with a lot of back up.

That's how I conduct myself on other platforms. But when people completely ignore the science and just talk shit like you've done? Don't play innocent and pretend that you didn't provoke it when it comes back to you.

 

[secretweapon]

DMs from two different people I've received in the last hour:

Nobody is discussing the material in your post. Odd.

You're being gaslit over there, it's not all in your head lol

 

[scarywood75]

Do you lie about people on other platforms too or just this one?

In response to @nccane on that other platform, someone had this to say:

That's how I conduct myself on other platforms. But when people completely ignore the science and just talk shit like you've done? Don't play innocent and pretend that you didn't provoke it when it comes back to you.

Just a reminder or maybe you don't know much this forum yet, but people here don't care about safety.

They're gonna complain if the product they receive is not 99% pure, or is under filled. But they're gonna use 3 months old BAC water punctured a trillion time to reconstitute and use the same vial to draw and inject from every week. Reconstituting in a non sterile environment without swabbing the vials and things like that. Of course no filtration, no usage of any sterile standards cuz we have one life to live they say

People are cheaping out sooooo much on safety but they're gonna complain as soon as they receive a subpart product. It's almost like they think a quality product can replace safety procedure

It's just mind blowing to me, that people think this way here, so of course when you bring anything about safety that'll complicate their stone age reconstitution process, you're not gonna be liked

 

[scarywood75]

They'll think they are using more sterile procedure than people working in this field or vendors. For them, it's just totally normal to do it this way, they never died yet so it must be OK right?! Yet, they complain when the product stings or cause ISR

 

[nccane]

Do you lie about people on other platforms too or just this one?

In response to @nccane on that other platform, someone had this to say:

That's how I conduct myself on other platforms. But when people completely ignore the science and just talk shit like you've done? Don't play innocent and pretend that you didn't provoke it when it comes back to you.

Brother, I'm all but admitting I provoked you. All it took was a laughing emoji to do it. The emoji at first was laughing at your approach to having a conversation around what defines the word "turning", but it turned into trolling for me after that.

You think I'm all torn up about this, I'm not. If you truly aren't megalith, please pay attention to his approach and try to understand why the approach doesn't work for advancing discourse on a serious topic. Calling people ignorant and feeling the need to have a rebuttal for the simplest of comments.

Please, keep going. Keep providing little snippets of conversations. I'm not the one trying to convince a community with my research, you are. You then, by default, have a higher standard to be held to than I do when it comes to credibility on the interwebz.

I'm a dumb ass finance guy giving you a hard time...and it just doesn't click for you. The entire thread proves my point on your emotional intelligence and motivations.

The funniest part of all this....is I agree with your research possibly being correct and stated as such to begin with.

 

[nccane]

I just wish I was half as witty at EWB. This may be the funniest thing I've seen on this forum

 

[brentm]

DMs from two different people I've received in the last hour:

No, that's not true. Your accusation that no one is discussing your original post.

I've asked you for citation [5] and I haven't heard back.

I also wanted to discuss the study where Cagri is referenced as Compound 23 and it did form some fibrils after 45 hours mechanical stress while at pH 7.5

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

Sunday at 7:43 AM

We went over this in the other thread - that is not what this section says. The table with the ThT assay results specifically shows they were able to form fibrils at 7.5

EDIT: Nevermind. I used chatgpt to help sort out this study... Here's what it said...

While the results indicate that Compound 23 did not entirely avoid fibrillation at pH 7.5, it demonstrated delayed onset and moderate recovery, making it less prone to fibrillation than many other analogues. However, this performance still falls short of the study's ideal metrics for fibrillation resistance.

Why Was...​

• brentm

• 

 

[DevynL90]

I just wish I was half as witty at EWB. This may be the funniest thing I've seen on this forumView attachment 4070

am i a rube or am i missing something here? secretweapon said they're either ignorant, OR they have ulterior motives. that's different than saying anyone who disagrees with me has ulterior motives. ewb misrepresented what he said as secretweapon gave two options, not one.

 

[hexagonal]

DMs from two different people I've received in the last hour:

I'm definitely on the more receptive side of the science being discussed here, but this sort of posting isn't going to win people over. The people that are against you will think you can just easily make them up, and people regardless are very rarely persuaded by random quotes of what other people have to say about you.

Everyone arguing against you is doing it based off of reasons that will not be swayed even if a bunch of people were actively posted in your favor publicly in this thread, and it just comes across as weird and defensive to post them yourself.

Just leave the discussion to the science. If people disagree with you, point out, with references, why they're wrong. The rest of this is just you getting baited into other nonsense.

 

[exploitedworkerbee]

am i a rube or am i missing something here? secretweapon said they're either ignorant, OR they have ulterior motives. that's different than saying anyone who disagrees with me has ulterior motives. ewb misrepresented what he said as secretweapon gave two options, not one.

What he was saying by giving those two options is “there is no discussion to be had here, I am right, and if you don’t think so then you’re either stupid or shady.” This was his FIRST POST on this forum. I was saying that there could be a third option—disagreement—but this brand of self righteous know it all couldn’t even fathom that as an option, instead preemptively criticizing anyone who evaluates it differently. He didn’t want to “discuss the science,” he wants to fight with internet strangers so he can think of himself as smart. He was trolling from the get-go, looking to get a rise out of yall, and im personally not intending to feed it anymore.

 

[nccane]

am i a rube or am i missing something here? secretweapon said they're either ignorant, OR they have ulterior motives. that's different than saying anyone who disagrees with me has ulterior motives. ewb misrepresented what he said as secretweapon gave two options, not one.

Devyn, come on. I'm trying to be funny and you want to talk about an "or" like it's a clause in the fine print of a legal contract.

 

[hexagonal]

EDIT: Nevermind. I used chatgpt to help sort out this study... Here's what it said...

While the results indicate that Compound 23 did not entirely avoid fibrillation at pH 7.5, it demonstrated delayed onset and moderate recovery, making it less prone to fibrillation than many other analogues. However, this performance still falls short of the study's ideal metrics for fibrillation resistance.

Why Was This Tolerated?​

The study's authors prioritized stability under the intended formulation conditions (pH 4.0), where Compound 23 performed well:

• At pH 4.0, Compound 23 exhibited a long lag time (45 hours) and high recovery (96%), indicating robust stability in the acidic conditions planned for its use.
• The lower pH mitigates fibrillation risk during storage and administration, making it clinically acceptable despite its suboptimal performance at pH 7.5.

Conclusion:​

Yes, Compound 23 formed fibrils at pH 7.5, as evidenced by the lag time and reduced peptide recovery in the assay. However, its overall performance across conditions and suitability for acidic formulations justified its selection for clinical development.

It's perhaps even more complicated than just the pH level.

The patent discusses testing they did at pH 4 with various buffers - https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230082544A1/en


Go to [0488] and begin reading, particularly through [0540] - we see that even at a 4.0, different buffers have different levels of fibril formation. Benzoate being the worst, glutamate being the best.

If fibrils are a health concern - and I really have no idea on the science here on if they are or aren't - I think we would need confirmation that the pH and buffering agents are both of the "correct" value/type. It looks like even adding too much buffering agent can also increase fibril formation, though this seems to be less of an issue vs. just the "wrong" PH or agent.

 

[DevynL90]

What he was saying by giving those two options is “there is no discussion to be had here, I am right, and if you don’t think so then you’re either stupid or shady.” This was his FIRST POST on this forum. I was saying that there could be a third option—disagreement—but this brand of self righteous know it all couldn’t even fathom that as an option, instead preemptively criticizing anyone who evaluates it differently. He didn’t want to “discuss the science,” he wants to fight with internet strangers so he can think he is smart. He was trolling from the get-go, looking to get a rise out of yall, and im personally not intending to feed it anymore.

i'll agree it wasn't the perfect entrance that's for sure, lol.

is there a way to present this type of opinion without sounding like a self righteous know it all in your eyes? i mean has anyone in here except maybe brent tried to challenge him/ask questions about any of the science? it's all just been stuff about his origin, his character, his motivations etc etc.

can't we at some point move on from that either/or comment and start talking about the rest of his statement?

 

[nccane]

i'll agree it wasn't the perfect entrance that's for sure, lol.

is there a way to present this type of opinion without sounding like a self righteous know it all in your eyes? i mean has anyone in here except maybe brent tried to challenge him/ask questions about any of the science? it's all just been stuff about his origin, his character, his motivations etc etc.

can't we at some point move on from that either/or comment and start talking about the rest of his statement?

This thread had some pretty good back and forth without attacking each other

Post in thread 'Reconstituting agent for Cagrilintide' https://glp1forum.com/threads/reconstituting-agent-for-cagrilintide.996/post-29956

 

[exploitedworkerbee]

i'll agree it wasn't the perfect entrance that's for sure, lol.

is there a way to present this type of opinion without sounding like a self righteous know it all in your eyes? i mean has anyone in here except maybe brent tried to challenge him/ask questions about any of the science? it's all just been stuff about his origin, his character, his motivations etc etc.

can't we at some point move on from that either/or comment and start talking about the rest of his statement?

If someone is an asshole engaging in bad faith, which is what I believe as outlined above, then no, there isn’t a way to just move past it because you’re not engaging on the merits. Had he posted his little white paper and said “i humbly submit my interpretation of the literature for feedback and discussion,” and left all the ad hominem aggression that followed at the door, then this whole thing would have unfolded very, very differently. But that isn’t who we are dealing with, that’s just the reality of the situation, and he made it very clear from the start.

If you want to discuss the topic with him then by all means you should. I’ve seen how this guy engages and im having no part of his fibril-fueled self esteem jerkoff session.

 

[DevynL90]

If someone is an asshole engaging in bad faith, which is what I believe as outlined above, then no, there isn’t a way to just move past it because you’re not engaging on the merits. Had he posted his little white paper and said “i humbly submit my interpretation of the literature for feedback and discussion,” and left all the ad hominem aggression that followed at the door, then this whole thing would have unfolded very, very differently. But that isn’t who we are dealing with, that’s just the reality of the situation, and he made it very clear from the start.

If you want to discuss the topic then by all means you should. I’ve seen how this guy engages and im having no part of his fibril-fueled self esteem jerkoff session.

i get it. i doubt it makes a difference but i will say that this entire thesis was a complete copy and paste from a contentious discord back and forth with someone by the name of "tessa" who apparently has been reliably named as someone who twists the science around cagri to support her financial incentives. yeah, he should've edited it a bit to make it more neutral before creating a brand new account and posting on a forum where he knows no one, i agree.

it's just disappointing i guess to see a lot of folks who in my opinion are quite smart and experienced (like you ewb) when it comes to gray market peptides not want to engage on the science/claims at hand. but you've been doing this long enough, you've seen and engaged with enough folks that i imagine at some point you probably learn to draw your line in the sand.

i personally don't think this guy falls into that category of poster but i'm just a sweet, summer child compared to some of y'all on here. i guess them's the breaks sometimes.