LindaRN_retired said:

Resolution therefore closed the doors unevenly, and the asymmetry follows from the bulks lists.

Agreeing with LindaRN_retired, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Worth adding the genuine exception, because it is real and narrow: a change made for an identified patient where the prescriber determines it produces a significant clinical difference for that patient. A grid of fixed doses offered to everybody is not that, whatever the intake form says.

mike_mealprep said:

Agreed on the mechanism, with the caveat that the head-to-head used semaglutide 1mg, not 2.4mg.

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion.

LindaRN_retired said:

Resolution therefore closed the doors unevenly, and the asymmetry follows from the bulks lists.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. A research-chemical supplier selling lyophilised powder labelled research use only is not compounding and is not claiming to. It is a different legal universe with no pharmacy oversight, no patient relationship and no content guarantee, and conflating the two in these threads helps nobody.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

Happy to go further on any of that.

Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.