This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Coming back to post #57, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Medullary thyroid carcinoma history: an absolute contraindication because of the preclinical findings in rodent toxicology. The history (personal or family, especially multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2) is an important screening question.
One of those cases where knowing the mechanism does not help the decision.
Post #61 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Nothing in this subcategory is medical advice and the questions asked here are precisely the ones that need an individual assessment.
Written from notes rather than memory, which is why the numbers are specific.
Following this. I have the same question and no better information than the first post.
I read post #61 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Two things can be true about Pregnancy and pregnancy planning 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.
Adding the boring version of Pregnancy and pregnancy planning, 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.
Before the thread moves on from Pregnancy and pregnancy planning — 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.
Dedicated trials in under-studied populations are the only real remedy and several are ongoing, which is worth saying rather than speculating.
I disagree with the framing of Pregnancy and pregnancy planning above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
Post #68 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
The most useful contribution here is usually a citation to whichever published document comes closest, with a plain statement of how far it is from the question.
Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.
Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.
The honest answer on Pregnancy and pregnancy planning is that it depends, and the useful part is the list of what it depends on. Four items, in rough order of how much they matter.
Most people get the first two right and then argue about the fourth.
Post-surgical populations, particularly after procedures affecting the gastrointestinal tract, interact with a delayed-emptying mechanism in ways that need specialist input.
I had written a reply contradicting post #74 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Body weight at the extremes of the studied range affects exposure and the trials rarely reported enough to say by how much.
Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.
Picking up post #76: that is the part I would want checked first.
I read the earlier replies on Pregnancy and pregnancy planning 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.
Worth stating the null on Pregnancy and pregnancy planning before we explain it: the observation may be nothing. That possibility deserves a sentence and usually does not get one.
Summarising the Pregnancy and pregnancy planning thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.
My position on Pregnancy and pregnancy planning is current rather than settled. I have revised it once already and I expect to again, so treat it accordingly.
Post #79 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Pregnancy and planning: these compounds are not approved for use in pregnancy. Planning windows (how long to wait before attempting pregnancy) are not formally established. Conservative approaches wait several months to allow clearance.
Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.
Noted, and thank you for writing it out rather than summarising it.
Where the Pregnancy and pregnancy planning discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on.
Post #83 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The arithmetic on Pregnancy and pregnancy planning is the easy part and it is where the errors are, which is an uncomfortable combination. Show your working and someone will catch it.
Genetic and ancestry-related differences in response are asked about regularly and the published evidence is thin enough that the honest answer is short.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
If you are new and reading this thread for the answer to Pregnancy and pregnancy planning: the answer is conditional, the conditions are in the third reply, and the rest of the thread is worth skipping.
Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it.