Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.

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

amsterdam_pete said:

The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.

That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. Orforglipron is a small molecule rather than a peptide, which is the whole point: no SNAC absorption enhancer, no fasting window, no cold chain, and oral bioavailability in the tens of percent instead of around one. Phase 2 put it near 14.7% weight loss at 36 weeks on the top dose with a side-effect profile that looks like the injectables.

newstart_MO said:

I have been following the oral non-peptide data since phase 2 and I am trying to work out how much of the enthusiasm here is about efficacy and how…

Mine went the same way, slower. Posting only so the count is not one.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.