pat_auckland said:

Orforglipron is the more interesting oral story because it is not a peptide at all.

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.

NurseKim_ATL said:

The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.

I read this differently from NurseKim_ATL, on substance rather than tone. I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them. The results probably generalise, and "probably" should be stated as an assumption rather than dropped.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here.