u/teodor_duarte

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

the 47 A1c trend is the answer

Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual moisture, your "10mg" is not 10mg of peptide.

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

nobody posts about this part and it is the longest part

Regain on a taper is expected. 21% back over 6 weeks, which matches the discontinuation data. Planned for it.

Yeah, maintenance is the boring part and the important part.

regain after taper is expected, plan for it

the 87 A1c trend is the answer

I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry is why the numbers here matter.

the 2.4mg dose is not the target, it is just what the pen goes up to

Not to be pedantic but CGM and A1c are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.

formulary exclusions are negotiable sometimes

Boots stock is hit-and-miss by location

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

no pharmacy referral codes, naming is fine, recruiting is not

Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.

This is correct. The shortage list does expire and the rules change.

food noise returns but not always immediately

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