u/anders_karlsen

Has your plan renewed since the last time you applied?

Which lane, and had it been quoted at that transit time?

compare cash prices before assuming coverage is the only path

Push back: PCOS as a diagnosis and insulin resistance as a finding are not interchangeable, and the thread is using them as one.

viktor_laurent is right that a diagnosis and a finding are different things here.

Correction: that trial did not enrol the population being discussed, so it cannot support the claim.

Agreed on keeping every form and date. When something goes wrong the paper trail is the whole case.

sort by controversial occasionally, it is worth it

Nothing on this board is medical advice, and rate, target and method are questions for somebody who knows your history.

no referral links, no affiliate links, not once

Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.

Correction: that rule applies to the vendor boards specifically, not site-wide. The wording is on the rules page.

Cosigning on saying who paid. It is the whole basis on which this log is worth anything.

What was the packaging — rigid outer, gel packs, anything insulating?

Left up.

This is the fact the whole board hangs on. Small molecule, not peptide.

The first thing I noticed was a jacket doing up. The scale had been flat for three weeks at that point.

A transit temperature logger records a distribution, and time above a threshold matters as much as peak temperature. That is the argument for logging rather than guessing.

How long was the randomised phase before any extension?

Nothing on this board is medical advice, and rate, target and method are questions for somebody who knows your history.

Those criteria were revised at renewal, so the version quoted upthread is out of date.

a mean is not a promise

intention to treat versus completers changes the number substantially

Correction: that stability figure covers the lyophilised powder, not the reconstituted solution. Different claim entirely.

Body weight varies by a couple of kilos day to day through fluid, glycogen and gut content, which is why a single weigh-in is noise and a fortnightly trend is signal.

Yes — nothing containing this is approved anywhere, and the threads keep forgetting it.

Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.

Push back: daily dosing is not automatically better adherence. It is a different failure mode, not a solved problem.

Not convinced. Oral semaglutide is a peptide formulated with an absorption enhancer; the comparison you are making does not hold.

Correcting myself upthread: I gave the completer figure and labelled it intention-to-treat.

a press release is not a publication

Gel packs are designed for a duty cycle. A liquid pack at the end of a longer-than-expected transit is a pack behaving as specified, not evidence of an excursion in the vial.

Same view — strict evidence rules make this board slower and make the archive worth reading in three years.

What did the confidence interval look like?

Is that the same lot as the one in the thread from last month?

ranked feeds mean the top comment is not the best answer

Same. A press release is a claim about a result; the publication is the result.

A rejected claim at the pharmacy counter and a denied authorization are different events with different remedies. The first can be an administrative or quantity issue; the second is a determination you can appeal.

Do you have the trace, or only the summary?

Which service, and did you pay for it yourself?

Split one vial between VendorInvestigate and Medutest. The two numbers were within half a point of each other and I stopped worrying about which lab to trust.

Employer-sponsored plans have their own criteria and appeal processes, independent of the provincial formulary. Which one applies determines everything about the route.