This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Where I part company with post #28, and it is a narrow parting.
I would put moderate confidence on the mainstream reading of Cross-border purchase within and no more. That is not scepticism for its own sake; it is where the sourcing actually stops.
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
Regulatory position dates: a regulatory position is only current as of when it was written. Rechecking is prudent, especially if you saw it months ago.
Post #31 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Where I have landed on Cross-border purchase within, 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.
Building on post #35 rather than restating it.
Temperature-controlled material and long-haul travel is a practical problem with practical solutions, none of which are on the packaging.
The number is defensible. The precision I gave it is not.
Adding the boring version of Cross-border purchase within, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.
Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.
Where a compound is approved under a different trade name in another market, searching the local name finds documents the English name does not.
Same experience here, different supplier, so it is at least not unique to one of them.
I keep a log for Cross-border purchase within specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.
Cross-border prescribing and cross-border dispensing are different questions with different answers in most jurisdictions.
If this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.
Quietly grateful for the plain phrasing. Not every thread gets that.
Adding the measurement that post #40 says would settle it.
What would change my mind on Cross-border purchase within is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.
A regional experience posted here should say which year it describes. The archive keeps these permanently and they age faster than anything else on the site.
I changed my mind about Cross-border purchase within after someone here asked me for the source and I could not produce one. That is worth saying out loud because it is the ordinary way it happens.
Answering the question post #46 raises rather than the one it answers.
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.
Post #48 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Two things can be true about Cross-border purchase within 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 Cross-border purchase within — 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.
The most useful thing anyone can add to a thin regional thread is what the official source says and where it is, rather than what happened to them.
I am reporting what happened, not recommending it.
Post #49 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Compounding in different countries: some countries allow pharmacy compounding under defined conditions; others do not. The rules are jurisdiction-specific and change.
Taking post #53 at face value and following it one step further.
What I want from this Cross-border purchase within thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
Everything in post #53 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Cross-border purchase within: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.
A regional experience posted here should say which year it describes. The archive keeps these permanently and they age faster than anything else on the site.
A weak preference rather than a position.
Building on post #57 rather than restating it.
Customs practice varies between entry points within the same country, which is why two people in the same jurisdiction report different experiences honestly.
Confirming post #57 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Cross-border purchase within was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.