Dr.ObesityLA said:

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

Agreeing with Dr.ObesityLA, 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.

EndoResFellow said:

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

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.

Dr.ObesityLA 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. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.