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

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

Reading this orforglipron phase 2 thread as someone who came in with a fixed view: the third and seventh replies moved me and the confident ones did not.

Coming back to post #12, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

A methods point on orforglipron phase 2 rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.

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

I would call that likely rather than established.

On orforglipron phase 2 I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.

Bringing the previous paper on the same question makes the session much better and doubles the preparation. Worth doing every third session rather than every one.

Reframing orforglipron phase 2 slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.

The strongest argument against my own position on orforglipron phase 2, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.

I changed my mind about orforglipron phase 2 after someone here asked me for the source and I could not produce one. That is worth saying out loud because it is the ordinary way it happens.

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

Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.