Orforglipron as a non-peptide: what changes when the molecule is small

A definition problem is doing most of the work in this orforglipron discussion. Once the term is pinned down I suspect the disagreement mostly goes away and what is left is small.

Picking up post #7: that is the part I would want checked first.

Adding what did not work for me on orforglipron, since the failures never get written up and they are half the useful information.

This follows post #11 rather than contradicting it.

My understanding of orforglipron is a few years old and may have been superseded. If it has been, I would genuinely like to know rather than keep repeating it.

Answering the question post #15 raises rather than the one it answers.

PIONEER 6 was a cardiovascular safety trial for oral semaglutide, not an efficacy trial. Non-inferiority for safety was demonstrated. The point estimates favoured the drug but the trial was not designed to establish benefit.

Where I would look next, rather than where I would stop.

Orforglipron is a small molecule, not a peptide. That changes almost everything: no absorption enhancer required, no fasting window, chemical synthesis instead of peptide synthesis, different analytical methods entirely. Data from peptide agonists does not transfer.

The strength of my opinion here exceeds the strength of my evidence.