Changing the route changes the evidence question. A paper about an injected, long-acting CJC construct cannot establish the performance of an oral no-DAC preparation, even if a seller uses the same CJC abbreviation for both.
The well-known healthy-adult CJC investigation used subcutaneous administration of its study intervention. It did not test an oral no-DAC tablet, capsule or lozenge. Citing it beside an oral product does not demonstrate that the oral product reproduces its exposure or outcomes.
Delivery needs its own validation
An oral formulation has to demonstrate what amount of intact active material reaches the relevant site under its tested conditions. A statement about the molecule's activity after injection does not answer that delivery question. Neither does a general claim that a formulation uses a special absorption technology.
A useful human study would identify the exact formulation, measure appropriate exposure and evaluate variability. It would then need to connect that exposure to the intended clinical outcome and assess safety. Establishing one part of this sequence does not automatically complete the others.
The opposite shortcut is also unhelpful: assigning a universal absorption percentage to every peptide formulation without a matching experiment. A lack of verified evidence should be described as such, rather than replaced with an invented precise number.
A lozenge's claimed contact with the mouth, for example, is not itself proof of absorption or efficacy. Route terminology can clarify the proposed mechanism, but it cannot substitute for data from that product.
For a reader, the key check is whether the cited study used the actual route and construct being advertised. If not, the study may provide background biology while leaving the product claim untested. This article offers no route conversion or alternative administration instructions. Research on one delivery method should not be presented as clinical validation of another.