unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about non-peptide is guesswork
unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about non-peptide is guesswork. Making the case below, and I expect to lose some of it in the comments.
The no-timing-restriction thing is the part I would care about most in practice, and it barely gets mentioned here.
Assumed the peptide purity conversations transferred and they do not. Different analytical problem entirely.
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator, and research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
If somebody has the same thing measured a different way, post it next to mine and we will see whether they agree.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Milligram comparisons across molecule classes are meaningless. Potency is a property of the molecule at its receptor, not of the number on the label.
Milligram-for-milligram comparison with an injectable peptide is not meaningful and I should not have made it.
[deleted]
This. The absence of food and water timing restrictions is the practical difference people will actually notice.
Disagree. You are comparing doses across a small molecule and a peptide, which is not a comparison of anything.
Read both programme names carefully after mixing them up in a comment and being politely corrected.
Left up. It is careful about what is peptide and what is not, which is more than most threads here manage.
Agreed that phase 3 is where the comparison becomes fair. Everything before it is inference.
Daily dosing, so what does the exposure profile look like across the day?
Analytically this is a small-molecule identity and purity problem, not a peptide one. The methods, the impurity classes and the reference standards are all different.
I would not assume the tolerability profile transfers exactly. Similar class effects, different exposure profile.