u/nordic_pricing

The site had a decade of testimonials and a domain registered in March. That was the entire investigation.

a lot of people plateau nicely at 10mg and never need 15

Pharmacy link removed. No links of any kind here, in any country, for any reason.

The directory deliberately separates "we have nothing on this name" from "this went badly". Collapsing the two is how boards like this generate false certainty.

Pointing this one at a pharmacist locally. Eligibility questions have national answers we cannot give.

2.5 is the starter dose and it is not meant to be the dose that works

Pharmacy pricing on a private prescription is set by the pharmacy. The spread between them in a given month is routinely substantial, which is why a tracker built from member reports is more useful than any headline.

Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.

Right — trial participants get structured support.

This is the distinction that would end about half the arguments on this board.

Glucagon receptor agonism is associated with increased energy expenditure and with hepatic effects. That is a mechanistic story with strong preclinical support and limited phase 2 human data.

The 21% figure is a 72-week mean on the highest arm. Quoting it as what someone should expect by week 86 is not a fair reading.

In England, specialist weight management services are commissioned locally, so eligibility criteria and waiting times differ by ICB. There is no single national threshold to quote.

That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.

the trials titrated on a calendar, real people titrate on symptoms

Agreed, with one qualifier: that is the mean of the top arm and the spread around it was enormous.

Pointing this one at a pharmacist locally. Eligibility questions have national answers we cannot give.

That is an accusation about a named individual and it does not belong here in any form.

SELECT was cardiovascular outcomes, not weight

sulphur burps are the signature complaint and they are not dangerous

Left up. It names the member state and the pack size, which is all we ask of a pricing post.

the trials titrated on a calendar, real people titrate on symptoms

a mean is not a promise

Agreed. And the interval, not the point estimate, is what the trial actually established.

What is the actual question underneath the question? Happy to answer both.

the EMA authorises, member states decide who pays

the review page nobody can find on any other site is a warning

The checks I run before sending money anywhere new, in order, and none of them cost anything.

Domain first, character by character, pasted rather than typed. Then registration age against the claimed trading history. Then a request, in writing, for a batch-specific certificate for the lot they would ship — not the catalogue document.

Then a small order, tested independently. Only after that a real one. This sequence has cost me a handful of small orders and it has never once cost me a large one, which is the whole point.

Small fix: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme, SURPASS is the type-2 programme. They are different endpoints and the numbers do not transfer.

Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range. Phase 3 estimates it precisely in a bigger population and catches what phase 2 was too small to see. Treating them as the same tier of evidence is the recurring error here.

read the endpoint before you read the headline

Disagreeing with this line: that is a relative reduction and the absolute numbers are considerably less dramatic.

Careful with the rankings. A phase 2 result and a phase 3 result are not on the same evidential footing and cannot be listed in one table.

Not convinced. You are attributing a week of sulphur burps to the glucagon arm when the escalation rate alone would explain it.

The four-week interval in the label is a minimum. Nothing about the pharmacology requires you to step on schedule, and the trials stepped on a calendar because trials have to.

dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason

Yes.

kian_verhoeven has the group-buy risk right — it is structural, not a judgement about anybody in particular.

the four-week step schedule is the label, not folklore

week two with nothing happening is normal

Did you come to this from sema, and if so how long was the gap?

SURMOUNT-1 landed around 21% at 72 weeks on the top arm

Yes — the interval is the finding. A point estimate with a wide interval is a hypothesis in a nice font.

read the wiki first, then ask anyway

the injection is easier than you are imagining