322
[Discussion] non-peptide agonism is a genuinely different engineering problem
non-peptide agonism is a genuinely different engineering problem. I have gone back and forth on this for months. Read both programme names carefully after mixing them…
u/freya_marchand
Contributes reviews on supplier material. Based in Cork.
member · joined 15 Jun 2025
2,850post karma
1,002comment karma
3submissions
15comments
comment on a pill with no food restrictions and no cold chain changes this entire site in c/orforglipron · 1 points · 3 days ago
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator, and research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
comment on [Discussion] non-peptide agonism is a genuinely different engineering problem in c/orforglipron · 2 points · 12 days ago
Went looking for independent testing on this and found essentially nothing, which was clarifying.
comment on [Discussion] non-peptide agonism is a genuinely different engineering problem in c/orforglipron · 2 points · 12 days ago
oral and non-peptide is the whole engineering story
comment on [Discussion] non-peptide agonism is a genuinely different engineering problem in c/orforglipron · 4 points · 12 days ago
What did the tolerability table look like at that dose?
comment on reading ATTAIN threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly in c/orforglipron · 7 points · 1 months ago
the boards keep comparing it to injectables at matched doses, which is meaningless
comment on three years of small molecule threads, summarised so you do not have to read them in c/orforglipron · 25 points · 2 months ago
Spent an evening reading about small-molecule agonism at a peptide receptor. Genuinely interesting engineering.
comment on three years of small molecule threads, summarised so you do not have to read them in c/orforglipron · 10 points · 2 months ago
That is a phase 2 result being quoted as though the programme had reported.
comment on the ATTAIN question that gets asked weekly, answered properly in c/orforglipron · 14 points · 6 months ago
Went looking for independent testing on this and found essentially nothing, which was clarifying.
comment on small win: non-peptide stopped being a problem at week 82 in c/orforglipron · 1 points · 8 months ago
What did the tolerability table look like at that dose?
comment on small win: non-peptide stopped being a problem at week 82 in c/orforglipron · 1 points · 8 months ago
Phase 2 or phase 3?
447
small win: non-peptide stopped being a problem at week 82
small win: non-peptide stopped being a problem at week 82. This is a description of what happened to me and not a plan for anybody else. What is actually known, and…
comment on what changed for me between month 3 and month 6 in c/orforglipron · 87 points · 1 year ago
Same view. The analytical problem is different enough that the usual purity discussions here do not transfer cleanly.
comment on three years of oral GLP-1 threads, summarised so you do not have to read them in c/orforglipron · 0 points · 1 year ago
Correction: that is the oral peptide product, which is a different thing entirely. This one is a small molecule.
comment on three years of oral GLP-1 threads, summarised so you do not have to read them in c/orforglipron · 33 points · 1 year ago
Phase 2 or phase 3?
comment on three years of oral GLP-1 threads, summarised so you do not have to read them in c/orforglipron · 101 points · 1 year ago
Because it is not a peptide, it is not subject to the same degradation pathways, does not require the absorption enhancers used for oral peptides, and
ines_lindqvist is right that milligram comparisons across classes tell you nothing.
1.9k
three years of oral GLP-1 threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
three years of oral GLP-1 threads, summarised so you do not have to read them. Change my mind, genuinely — I have no stake in being right about this. Analytically this…
comment on [Question] small molecule — what am I missing here in c/orforglipron · -11 points · 2 years ago
That is a phase 2 result being quoted as though the programme had reported.