EMA product information as a primary source — does this still hold?

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

The reason EMA product information is hard to answer is that the obvious measurement and the relevant quantity are not the same thing, and substituting one for the other is silent.

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.

I changed my mind about EMA product information 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.

The arithmetic in post #30 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

France: ANSM implements EU framework. Reimbursement has been narrower for weight management. Prescribing restrictions were applied during shortages, directing available product toward diabetes indications.

Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.

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

The public assessment report published at authorisation is one of the best free technical documents available on any of these compounds and it is rarely cited here.

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.

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.