PeptideChemSF said:

Denials are usually procedural rather than clinical, and the order that works reflects that.

That holds for the injectable. The oral formulation has different absorption behaviour and the dose numbers are not interchangeable, which is worth saying out loud because people quote them as if they were.

AttorneyGrant said:

Steady state is the thing most people miss.

That reframing is the part I needed. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

PeptideChemSF said:

Denials are usually procedural rather than clinical, and the order that works reflects that.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.

One concrete data point for the thread. 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.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful.