my A1c moved and I cannot work out whether Australia is why
Right, the TGA question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 13 data points over 16 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign.
The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am describing showed up at week 58, not week 12. People give up long before the interesting part.
Interested in whether this matches other people's logs or whether I am an outlier.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Yeah, the 2024 rule change was sudden.
Cite the TGA notice?
TGA shortage notices are temporary
Strongly agree. AU and NZ differ.
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Adding to this: shortage is doing more work than the comment implies.
Small correction: the trial was 11 weeks, not 38. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with TGA, not with what you concluded.
AU and NZ are different systems, say which
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
Yeah, the 2024 rule change was sudden.
unfunded-means-full-price is the NZ reality
unfunded-means-full-price is the NZ reality
Disagree on that part. 99.0% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
unfunded-means-full-price is the NZ reality
No.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
- 1Strongly agree. AU and NZ differ.8 comments in this branch · started by u/lyophile_lou
- 2Yeah, the 2024 rule change was sudden.4 comments in this branch · started by u/slow_logbook_notes