Follow-up: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question

Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question Everything below is what sits behind that.

A follow-up question about orforglipron phase 2 that I did not know to ask the first time.

The earlier thread answered what I asked. What I should have asked is below, and I think it is the one that matters.

On post #2 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

The confident answers on orforglipron phase 2 and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.

My experience of orforglipron phase 2 contradicts the reply above. I am posting it as a data point rather than as a refutation, because one person's experience is exactly that.

Two things can be true about orforglipron phase 2 at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.

Worth separating two things that post #43 runs together.

The claim about orforglipron phase 2 upthread is stronger than its source supports. I have read the source. The source says "associated with" and the post says "causes".

Adding a reference point for orforglipron phase 2. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.

Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.

Seconded. It reads as careful rather than confident, which is the right register.

That is a cleaner way of putting what I was circling around.