EMA product information as a primary source posts 31–60

Everything in post #27 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

Nobody has said the unglamorous part of EMA product information yet, so: most of the variation is explained by things that are boring to write about and easy to check.

Narrowing post #31, because the general version has more than one answer.

Date every claim. Positions in this subcategory have moved repeatedly and the archive keeps posts permanently.

I would treat the number as indicative rather than as a measurement.

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

Reporting the observation and leaving the explanation open deliberately.

Acknowledging rather than arguing. The reasoning holds as far as I can follow it.

Answering the question post #31 raises rather than the one it answers.

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.

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.

I am aware this is the third time this month I have made this point.

What I would want before treating EMA product information as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.

My experience of EMA product information contradicts the reply above. I am posting it as a data point rather than as a refutation, because one person's experience is exactly that.

Language versions of the product information are all official and occasionally differ in emphasis. Where a detail matters, reading two is not paranoid.

Noting that I have skin in this question and have tried to discount for it.

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.

Building on post #40 rather than restating it.

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.

Post #38 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

Prescription status is harmonised at the level of the authorisation and the practical route to a prescription is not.

I have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.

I keep a log for EMA product information specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.

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.