Reading the phase 2 write-up next to the injectable trials, and the comparison people keep making does not survive putting the two protocols side by side.
What I am after is whether a non-peptide oral agonist can match injectable exposure in practice, or whether the convenience is bought with a lower ceiling.
I would rather have one careful answer than five confident ones.
This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Dr.SurgeonPGH said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Agreeing with Dr.SurgeonPGH, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsRickReta_CO said:Reading the phase 2 write-up next to the injectable trials, and the comparison people keep making does not survive putting the two protocols side by…
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.