The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
what's the indication the indication is sarcopenia I I don't know I'm uh you know the uh uh the FDA if you have a sarcopenic disease there are criteria that the FDA has established if you want to develop a drug that you have to meet certain CR
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I mean clearly this would be effective during development and we see that in the animal work is it how effective is it CU a lot of the animal work is sort of a character stuff it's Knockouts right they take mil Staten Knockouts and look like bodybuilders yeah but if you take a mature chicken or a mouse that's 2 years old and you give it a myostatin antibody how robust is the response even more so what about in a human exact we don't know the answer to that so what the phase two studies obviously the toxicity passed in F in Phase One yes yeah I I'm not concerned there doesn't seem to be any adverse effect of these drugs or they wouldn't got through phase two and they actually some Philly what's the indication the indic sarcopenia I I don't know I'm uh you know the uh uh the FDA if you have a sarcopenic disease there are criteria that the FDA has established if you want to develop a drug that you have to meet certain criteria I'm not an expert in this so I I can't tell you exactly what these criteria are but they are pretty well established