Posting this because the summary going around does not say what the paper says, and the difference matters for how people here are using it.
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.
Where I think it is weakest: the comparator does most of the work in how this gets reported, and it is not the comparator most people think they are citing.
The narrow version of the question is whether a non-peptide oral agonist can match injectable exposure in practice, or whether the convenience is bought with a lower ceiling. Practical detail welcome, however dull — the duller the better.
Note on sourcing:
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.