GIP receptor agonism and the argument about direction — does this still hold?

This follows post #2 rather than contradicting it.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

Species differences: rodent studies show the same compounds produce effects in rodents that predict human effects reasonably well for semaglutide and tirzepatide. The track record is less clear for novel compounds with less human data.

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

Bias and desensitisation: receptors can be biased (preferentially activating some downstream pathways over others) and can desensitise over time (responding less to the same stimulus with repeated exposure). Both might affect long-term response to these compounds.

This follows post #9 rather than contradicting it.

Cross-reactivity and selectivity: the compounds are not perfectly selective for their target receptors. Semaglutide has some activity on other receptors; tirzepatide activates both GLP-1 and GIP with different affinities. The off-target effects are part of the overall pharmacology.