Prescription portability between countries

Prescription portability between countries — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

Asking about prescription portability between countries directly, because I have read four threads on it and each answered a slightly different question.

The version I want answered is the narrow one: given the method stated below, is the result within what anyone else has seen? I am not asking what it means yet.

Method, numbers and the two assumptions I am aware of making are below. If the assumptions are wrong that is more useful to me than agreement.

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

The arithmetic in post #2 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

Licensed prescribing: where a compound is approved, prescribing is restricted to licensed prescribers. Where it is not approved, the legality of possession and use is unclear.

Where I part company with post #4, and it is a narrow parting.

Where I have landed on prescription portability between countries, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.

The confident answers on prescription portability between countries and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.

Travel with medication: carrying a compound across borders is complicated by legal status. Documenting that it is prescribed and carrying proof reduces (but does not eliminate) risk.

I would want the raw data before agreeing with my own summary of it.

Customs and import outcomes: different routes have different seizure rates. Some countries are stricter on peptide imports than others. History on a route is more predictive than theory.

I had written a reply contradicting post #7 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

Speaking only to prescription portability between countries as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.

Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.

A note on how prescription portability between countries gets discussed rather than on prescription portability between countries itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.

Post #11 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

Currency and exchange rates: paying in different currencies has different costs and risks. Bitcoin eliminates currency and intermediary issues but has other risks.

Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.

The arithmetic in post #12 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

I read the earlier replies on prescription portability between countries twice before writing this, because I had assumed the opposite and wanted to be sure I was disagreeing with what was said rather than what I expected.

Prescription portability between countries came up in a thread eighteen months ago and was answered well. I cannot find it, which is itself the problem, so here is the reconstruction.