u/curious_panel_only

This is correct. The naming is genuinely confusing.

Sceptical.

Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.

formulary exclusions are negotiable sometimes

You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.

say which nation, England, Scotland, Wales, NI differ

Adding to this: pharmacy is doing more work than the comment implies.

This is correct. Appeal letters work.

memo/tag requirements differ by network

Peak temperature and how long at that temperature?

the constipation from tirz is different, not necessarily worse

The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.

Did you get step therapy or outright denial?

No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.

the first time question is not dumb

Small correction: the trial was 11 weeks, not 15. Does not change your point but people will quote it.

Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone has to re-explain it.

You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.

The discount was 98.4% but gas ate half of it. Still worth it but the math matters.

SURMOUNT data is messier than STEP data but the weight loss is there

The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.

Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.