FreeSpectator8
New_Member
I got lambda water BAC water, and Quality Research Chemicals AA, we will see how it goes. Bought PH test strips to see if they can work instead of having to buy a 50+ dollar PH tester.
Yea I used the strips. They worked fine.I got lambda water BAC water, and Quality Research Chemicals AA, we will see how it goes. Bought PH test strips to see if they can work instead of having to buy a 50+ dollar PH tester.
As I am more concerned with stability after recon, I read this a couple times to absorb this..... it makes sense. Thanks for adding your experience.I buy StatLab bac 2ml vials (actually has ~3.1-3.5ml) on Amazon. I had one vial half empty (1.6ml) so I added AA 0.6% (from Quality Research Chemical 10 ml on Amazon). After adding 1.4ml of AA, I got pH4.5. No sting, so for next Cagri recon I will do 75% AA to get ~pH4.0. Looks like pure AA should be pH2.8 @ 0.6%. (0.1Mole). My AA was about pH3.5. Was it mixed with water? not really 0.6% ? Is AA alone a good enough peptide preservative for 30 days? Works for pickling ! USP standard allows a lot of variance for the pH of bac water: Hospira bac pH5.7 can be between pH4.5 to 7.0. The mannitol filler is pH6.3. Conclusion: need to test the pH of the bac/AA, and also the final recon pH.
NN is explicit that fibrils do form in cagrilintide, in both that research paper and in the patent. I have quoted those sections extensively across these threads. In the research paper, yes, they use a test that puts it in relatively extreme conditions vs. what is going to be seen after it is reconstituted by most people here, but we don't know what it looks like on the manufacturing side, how roughly it is treated there, how it is stored, etc. The patent filing uses a significantly less torturous test, but we still see fibril formation in the longer term with that test as well.First of all, I was not talking to you. I was directly responding to a user who claimed that NN had admitted that the current Cagri compound will create fibrils.
That however is not what that hogwash of a facebook post says, it only talks about the chemicals that were tried in the process of developing Cagri.
Now addressing you, you seem to be completely misunderstanding the entire point of the research paper you keep referencing. The research was *not* conducted in such a way as to find out if chemical 23 (Cagrilintide) is dangerous, it is the culmination of all the different research they did before deciding that Cagrilintide is the safest and most effective choice for human use.
That means Novo went and paid probably millions of dollars trying to develop this drug, and they decided that Cagrilintide was the safest and best choice to move forward with for testing, OK? That means after spending all that money, they decided to move foward with this drug for trials, knowing that if they get approved and it later ends up being unsafe they will be paying out the ass in lawsuits.
You're writing a whole lot that doesn't actually say anything one way or other about the concern. No one is arguing that the PH remains low in your body.Now, does that mean we dont have to buffer cagri? I cannot say, but the solubility of 23 (Cagri) is fully soluble and stable all the way up to a PH of 8. Additionally, compound 1 still fibrilated in high dosages despite being in a 4 PH solution, they theorize that is because compound 1 was not soluble at higher PH and after injection the chemical is mixed with the human bodies fluids which are by and large a very constant 7.4-ish PH, no amount of buffering will change this, and you dont want it to because if you did it would fuck you up. It is theorized at low doses compound 1 was kept soluble by albumin, a chemical in human serum fluid, so in higher dosages, as the compound binds and uses up all local albumin, it allows the chemical to fibrilate, and the fibrils do not necessarily redisolve once the albumin returns to the area because the compound is not soluble above PH 5.
What this very clearly shows is that the solubility of the chemical is leaps and bounds more important than the PH of the fluid. YES in storage a ph of 4 is probably better, but when the chemical gets in your blood it is going to be in a 7.4ph solution until it is fully removed from your body.
Cagrilintide (Compound 23) solves this issue by being soluble up to a ph of 8.
It is in my opinion that with the information blatantly available, Cagri is most likely perfectly safe in the short term after reconstitution whether you buffer it to PH 4 or not. As you have said they are already mixing the to in CagriSema.
As far as your concerns about their testing showing that high heat and wear and tear on the chemical can cause fibrils, I would just remind you that these medications are stored in a form that is not reconstituted, and once reconstituted are nowhere near those conditions.
No one should be taking anything I say as anything beyond my own layperson interpretation of the paper and patent filing, lol. I'm certainly no expert.Need to hear @hexagonal rebuttal to freespectators points. Hex talking points about cagri is what got my layman brain concerned in the first place to tweak the PH lol
Appreciate your humble and thoughtful approach to all this. I think one of the reasons these conversation get ugly is that team fibril has several vocal members (leaders?) who are… ummmm… less measured in their tone and less lucid in their language. Your interpretation was helpful.No one should be taking anything I say as anything beyond my own layperson interpretation of the paper and patent filing, lol. I'm certainly no expert.
Thanks!Appreciate your humble and thoughtful approach to all this. I think one of the reasons these conversation get ugly is that team fibril has several vocal members (leaders?) who are… ummmm… less measured in their tone and less lucid in their language. Your interpretation was helpful.
.22um is 220nm, so individual fibrils would still pass through.Great discussions. Google AI results say it may be over the course of 10-20 years of accumulation before plaque forms. Specific conditions. Is there enough material in Cagri 2.5mg weekly, taken for 6 months to be a concern? These are all relatively young GPL medication. In a study, to create fibrils, they had to keep the temperature near 37celcius for days and then use a 0.22um filter to count them(fibrils measure 10nm) Am I to conclude that using a .22um filter would remove them? Should I be filtering my grey market peps anyway as I expect to stay on maintenance for 1 or 2 years after I reach my goal? A survey on filtering?
I know but your rebuttals and skepticism are pretty solid. Debate is healthy.No one should be taking anything I say as anything beyond my own layperson interpretation of the paper and patent filing, lol. I'm certainly no expert.
I haven’t taken the leap to use a syringe filter yet only the lower PH. Haven’t learned the whole syringe filter process. Does anyone have a link of which one to buy?Great discussions. Google AI results say it may be over the course of 10-20 years of accumulation before plaque forms. Specific conditions. Is there enough material in Cagri 2.5mg weekly, taken for 6 months to be a concern? These are all relatively young GPL medication. In a study, to create fibrils, they had to keep the temperature near 37celcius for days and then use a 0.22um filter to count them(fibrils measure 10nm) Am I to conclude that using a .22um filter would remove them? Should I be filtering my grey market peps anyway as I expect to stay on maintenance for 1 or 2 years after I reach my goal? A survey on filtering?
From the paper on Oral Semaglutide: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2019/213051Orig1s000ChemR.pdfNN is explicit that fibrils do form in cagrilintide, in both that research paper and in the patent. I have quoted those sections extensively across these threads. In the research paper, yes, they use a test that puts it in relatively extreme conditions vs. what is going to be seen after it is reconstituted by most people here, but we don't know what it looks like on the manufacturing side, how roughly it is treated there, how it is stored, etc. The patent filing uses a significantly less torturous test, but we still see fibril formation in the longer term with that test as well.
Part of the testing in the paper is to determine if fibrils are formed. I have never claimed this makes it dangerous - I have explicitly said I do not understand enough about the science to know if these fibrils truly are dangerous. What I will say is that in the testing conditions in the paper and the patent filing, they do find that cagrilintide produces fibrils.
You're writing a whole lot that doesn't actually say anything one way or other about the concern. No one is arguing that the PH remains low in your body.
No one has produced details on what PH is being used for the single chamber pen - we seem to be assuming it is a higher PH, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case, but they might also be going with a lower pH for the entire solution, unless someone has evidence that semaglutide is harmed at the lower pH.
Again, the patent involves a significantly more gentle test, at temperatures below 100F and just doing 100 end-over-end inversions of the vial on the liquid form of cagrilintide + buffering agent each day.
I've also been quite explicit my primary point is we have no idea what is happening with the manufacturing before the lyophilization. How long was it in the pre-lyophilized state? What pH was it manufactured at and stored at in between? What were the conditions during that time period? If I thought that just reconstituting it at a lower pH solved all ills, I would be using cagrilintide myself - I'm certainly confident in my ability to lower the pH of a solution. All I've said about it in reconstituted form is that if I had decided to press on and use it regardless of the rest, I would filter it and reconstitute at a lower pH to do what I could to prevent further fibril formation.
There were lots of kinda dodgy things you said in that comment.As far as manufacturing concerns, there is only one way to create the specific formulation that is cagrilinitide, that's kind of how chemicals work.
I don't know how applicable the oral semaglutide formulation is, but I'll accept it as being 1:1 for the sake of argument.From the paper on Oral Semaglutide: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2019/213051Orig1s000ChemR.pdf
"Semaglutide tablets are co-formulated with 300 mg of salcaprozate sodium (SNAC, a
permeation enhancer). The isoelectric point of the semaglutide is 5.4. The peptide has a
low solubility at pH range 2-6. Semaglutide is considered a BCS class 4 molecule (low
permeability and low solubility). It is hypothesized that SNAC facilitates the oral
absorption of semaglutide in stomach either by transiently increasing the transcellular
permeability in gastric epithelium or through buffering action on the local environment
near the site of action to provide a high pH and thereby protecting the semaglutide from
degradation."
Additionally:
"The effect of pepsin on oral semaglutide stability was most profound at low pH, with oral semaglutide being most labile toward pepsin at pH 2.6 (t½ = 16 min)" Its clear that Semaglutide is unstable at low PH and will degrade quicker, making storing it in a low PH solution not ideal.A Review on the Efficacy and Safety of Oral Semaglutide - PMC
There are numerous treatment options currently available for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus; however, a multitude of patients continue to have inadequately controlled glycemic levels with their current antihyperglycemic regimen. Furthermore, ...pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
So there you go as far as your question about how we can say they likely aren't lowering the PH of the CagriSema mixture.
Except that they explicitly say that Cagri does not meet their design thresholds at the 7.5 pH, much less 8. If it did, why would they have bothered developing the dual chamber pen and keeping it at a lower pH to begin with? They obviously had a reason at the time, considering the additional cost and complexity incurred.Especially since the custom designed Cagri to be soluble and long term stable in a pH up to 8.
You seem to be arguing semantics here. Yes, of course they knew fibrils could form. I believe from context it is obvious that the discussion is about the timelines and conditions for fibril formulation.Again, no, part of the paper was not to find if fibrils form in cagri this is already a-given, as the chemical type that is the basis of Cagri will fibrillate. The whole point of the experiment was to find the best chemical composition that resisted fibrillation the longest and best while providing the best effect and any other sought after qualities. These tests would be used to simulate the maximum amount of degradation the product could possibly experience in its good til shelf life.
If we're going to be arguing semantics, in your previous portion of your text, you explicitly said "cagri will fibrillate."It is a false equivalence to say that because Cagri CAN fibrillate, then it DOES fibrillate. This is simply not true.
NN is not going to open itself up to liability of long term health effects caused by there drug because they figured it "probably wouldnt be a problem" they have a duty to test to the fullest extent and guarantee individuals safety. Not to mention the class action lawsuits that could and would happen if it became obvious they had shipped a product that can and will degrade and harm you during its shelf life.
What are you even talking about? Nothing I discussed in my manufacturing portion would mean using a different formulation. It was explicitly about pH, temperature, amount of abuse it suffers, etc. If it sits around on shelves in a hot warehouse for a month and then takes two weeks in a hot trailer as it moves from the raw manufacturer to the finisher, vibrating along the roads, that environment is suddenly getting closer to the sort of stress seen in the the research paper and patent filings where they found fibrils forming.As far as manufacturing concerns, there is only one way to create the specific formulation that is cagrilinitide, that's kind of how chemicals work. Any sort of impurities will come up in a purity test from janoshik, and if the chemical is wrong it wont match the sample that janoshik or any other testing party uses.
Ok, sure go ahead and explain how you plan to get the compound known as cagrilintide, without creating the exact same chain of compounds, as seen here:There were lots of kinda dodgy things you said in that comment.
But this specific sentence is so egregiously wrong it actually made me laugh.