u/line_bergstrom

Flair changed to match the content.

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

Strongly agree. Evidence level matters.

Has anyone actually got this in writing, or is it forum lore at this point?

Slight fix: the number was 97.6, not 94.2. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.

External review overturned the denial. Took 15 weeks but the process exists.

formulary exclusions are negotiable sometimes

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

the 2.5mg dose works fine for 30 weeks of the month

denial reason codes matter, ask for the actual code

Yeah, identity is the first question.

EMA and national agency claims need citation

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 23 weeks to accept.

external review is the appeal after insurance says no

Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.

evidence-level statements required: in vitro, rodent, or human

the lowest dose you can stay on is not the lowest dose that works

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.

Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 66 weeks to accept.

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

one log per person, update it, do not repost