Remix.run Logo
▲ dnautics 2 days ago

The glp-1 story is super overblown. GLP-1s were a highly desired target LONG before gila monster venom was discovered to be an agonist. And it really was around the same time that lipid attachments were becoming appreciated for their half-life attenuation, so even if amylin (the company) never took on exenatide as a (shitty) drug candidate, proper glp-1s with lipid attachements were kind of inevitable. Obviously we can't know this for sure, but cmon. How much did gila monsters buy? Maybe a year or two?

so, you should really recalibrate being taken in by just-so stories of basic science being SUPER important.

▲tbrake 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

the point was about the nonsensical nature of dismissing things out of hand just because you can't imagine a "practical application" for it on the spot.

the earlier habener results that actually got us to glp-1s via anglerfish pancreas would have been similarly derided. substitute that in if it helps.

▲dnautics a day ago | parent [-]

Yeah, there's absolutely no way anyone would have ever identified any human hormones in humans without anglerfish research.

▲estearum a day ago | parent [-]

Even as far as strawmen go, this was an unimpressive one.

▲estearum 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

...?

Your rebuttal is that GLP was a highly desirable target for a long time before we stumbled upon a way to hit it... and this is evidence that the "stumbling upon a way to hit it" was not a super critical and super fortunate event...?

> How much did gila monsters buy? Maybe a year or two?

Why'd you put "a year or two?" here and not "a decade or two?" or "a century or two?" Do you have reason to believe it was a year or two away, sans Gila monster? If so, can you provide your reasoning? Per your own point, GLP was a desirable target for a long time without successful hits. We have plenty of targets that are desirable for decades without figuring out a way to actually drug them.

▲dnautics a day ago | parent [-]

Do you know the full story of glp-1 from a pharmacokinetic point of view? It seems not, since I explained clearly why I assigned a short time in my above comment.