[Meta] the small molecule rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.
The claim: small molecule matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 19 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 19 people measuring the same thing the same way. I have started; my numbers are below. They lean one way but not strongly enough for me to declare victory.
If you have data, post the data. If you have an opinion, flair it as an opinion.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Yeah, small molecule changes the whole game.
Maintenance for 11 months now. Weight moves within about 3kg and the dose is a quarter of what it peaked at.
I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry is why the numbers here matter.
phase 10 data is interesting, phase 32 will tell the real story
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
Yeah, small molecule changes the whole game.
The muscle cramps was genuinely awful for three weeks and then simply stopped. I know that is not useful information, but it is what happened.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
no cold chain means ATTAIN, if approved
small molecule, not a peptide, purity discussion is different
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
cite ATTAIN/ACHIEVE arms specifically
small molecule, not a peptide, purity discussion is different
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
small molecule purity is different testing than peptides
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
the absorption problem is solved by non-peptide structure
Came off after 57 weeks for financial reasons. Regained about a third over the following year. Back on now at a much lower dose.
This is correct. ATTAIN data is phase 19.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
no cold chain means oral GLP-1, if approved
Second this question. I have wondered about orforglipron for 9 months and never seen a straight answer.
Did anything else change in the same window?
the the food-noise thing profile is speculative at this stage
phase 19 data is interesting, phase 36 will tell the real story
oral non-peptide agonist is small molecule, no food restrictions
- 1Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.12 comments in this branch · started by u/phase_two_pete
- 2small molecule, not a peptide, purity discussion is different5 comments in this branch · started by u/first_hundred