Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
Happy to go further on any of that.
andrew_nyc said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Same position here, arrived at the long way round. 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.
Worth separating that from compounded supply, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
andrew_nyc said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The shortage clause is the answer to the second question and it is a subtraction rather than an addition. Both exemptions forbid compounding something that is essentially a copy of a commercially available approved product. A product FDA has listed as in shortage is not treated as commercially available, so listing removed the objection that otherwise blocked compounding. It never created a permission; it withdrew a prohibition, which is why it evaporated the moment the supply fact changed.
Worth separating that from compounded supply, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
Worth separating that from compounded supply, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What the dose-response curve actually looks like above 1.7mg, because the trial means hide how few people account for the extra loss?