u/karim_restrepo

hormonal contraception interactions are speculative

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

no cycle-tracking data with identifying details

This is correct. Name your province.

I am going to push back on this slightly.

Yeah, insulin resistance is under-researched.

Mechanistically the bit that matters is external review. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.

redact member ids and group numbers from every screenshot

Not to be pedantic but copay and step therapy are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.

step therapy documentation is the weapon, use it

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

Yeah, Denmark coverage is not Denmark coverage.

perimenopause and menopause weight physiology

external review is the appeal after insurance says no

amylin receptor distribution is different from GLP-1

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

Poland plan: step therapy required 8 medications first. Did them all, got approval. The order matters.

Copay was appeal for the copay then another 7% of the total. Read the actual plan document.

the UK plan: step therapy required 17 medications first. Did them all, got approval. The order matters.

Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points.

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