EMA product information as a primary source — does this still hold? posts 121–150

Coming back to post #133, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

EMA product information is well covered in the tag pages, and the older discussions are better than the recent ones because they were argued out properly. Worth twenty minutes before adding to this one.

Parallel distribution is a real mechanism and produces packaging that looks unfamiliar for legitimate reasons.

Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.

The reason EMA product information keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown.

Taking EMA product information seriously for a moment rather than deflecting: the honest position is that the community has observations and no controlled comparison, and those two things support very different sentences.

Members outside the union should note that essentially none of this transfers, including the parts phrased generally.

I would want to see it done twice before believing it once.

Confirming post #137 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

EMA is the regulator with national implementation. Licensed incretin analogues are prescription-only across the EU, with some variation in specific approvals by member state.

Two things can be true about EMA product information at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.

Before the thread moves on from EMA product information — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.

Building on post #142 rather than restating it.

Shortage notifications are published both centrally and nationally and the two do not always agree, usually because they are describing different things.

This is where my knowledge stops and I would rather mark the edge than blur it.

Seconded. It reads as careful rather than confident, which is the right register.

Marking my uncertainty on EMA product information explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.

Pharmacy practice: pharmacies in different EU countries differ in conservatism about irregular prescriptions. Some will decline a prescription they consider irregular; others will not. Local pharmacy culture matters.

That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.

Post #146 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

Reimbursement is decided nationally and varies substantially between member states for the same authorised product.

Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.

If someone has run EMA product information properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.

Appreciated. The plain phrasing does more work here than a longer post would.

Agreed on EMA product information, with one qualification that I think matters. The reasoning holds for the case as described. Change the starting assumption and it does not, and the starting assumption is the part nobody states.