u/karim_restrepo

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

amylin is not a GLP-1, posts conflating them get corrected

Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.

This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.

name your province, coverage is provincial

Denied for prior auth, resubmitted with external review documentation, approved on appeal. The criteria exist, you just have to meet them.

Yeah, the UK coverage is not the UK coverage.

do not suggest misrepresenting a diagnosis, that is fraud

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 40 weeks to accept.

do not suggest misrepresenting a diagnosis, that is fraud

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 89 weeks to accept.

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

prior auth criteria are state-specific, formulary differs

Stalled for 16 weeks, changed nothing, and it started moving again on week 56.

Strongly agree. Zero human controlled data.

This is correct. Name your province.

That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.

the regulatory rodent evidence is solid, human evidence is not

Strongly agree. Step therapy is predictable if you have the criteria.

Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with prior authorization, not with what you concluded.

do not suggest misrepresenting a diagnosis, that is fraud

perimenopause and menopause weight physiology