hyun_seoul said:

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

All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule. Anyone who slowed the ladder for tolerability is on a different, flatter curve, and comparing yourself with the published mean will make you feel like a non-responder when you are not.

Worth separating that from compounded supply, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

pete_manc_UK said:

The dose-response is real but shallow at the top.

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

hyun_seoul said:

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

I read this differently from hyun_seoul, on substance rather than tone. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Two things anyone can check: a state licence number for a 503A, and an FDA outsourcing-facility registration for a 503B. Both are publicly searchable, and a pharmacy unwilling to give you either has answered the question.

Moderator note: a couple of off-topic posts removed. No action needed from anybody.