why does nobody talk about non-peptide
Genuine question, and the title is the question: why does nobody talk about non-peptide. 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.…
What is actually known, and what is being assumed.
Known: it is a small-molecule GLP-1 receptor agonist, dosed daily, with clinical programmes reporting in both obesity and type 2 diabetes. Its tolerability profile broadly resembles the class in the data published so far.
Assumed, frequently and confidently: that milligram comparisons with injectables mean something, that adherence is straightforwardly better because it is a tablet, that peptide purity discussions transfer to it. None of those hold. And nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere, which makes research-use-only material exactly that — not approved for human use.
Agreed that phase 3 is where the comparison becomes fair. Everything before it is inference.
Agreed that phase 3 is where the comparison becomes fair.
Agreed, and it is why the oral peptide comparison keeps misleading people.
Right, and comparing milligrams between a small molecule and a peptide is meaningless in either direction.
Correcting myself: that was a phase 2 readout and I described it as phase 3.