MHRA statements, read directly posts 61–90
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.
The arithmetic in post #61 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
MHRA is the regulator. Licensed incretin analogues are prescription-only medicines. NHS and private prescribing routes exist with materially different access criteria and costs.
Scoping that to what I have actually seen rather than what I have read.
Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one: has anyone here actually observed MHRA statements, as opposed to read about it? The thread is long and I cannot tell.
Practical answer on MHRA statements, since the theoretical one is upthread: do the simplest check first, write down the result, and only then decide whether the complicated explanation is needed. It usually is not.
Post #61 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Compounding pharmacies: UK allows compounding under specific conditions when a licensed product is unavailable. That is not a front-line option but becomes relevant during shortages.
Reading it again, the caveat matters more than the finding.
If someone has run MHRA statements properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.
Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it.
A methods point on MHRA statements rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.
Members outside these two jurisdictions reading this thread should note that none of it transfers, including the parts that sound general.
I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
One more thing on MHRA statements that took me far too long to see: the two figures people quote are not measuring the same quantity. Once you notice that, the apparent contradiction disappears.
Post #68 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
What would change my mind on MHRA statements 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.
Reading back through, this was answered upthread and I missed it. My fault.
Cross-border arrangements: some people source from other EU countries. Rules on import for personal use are changing post-Brexit. Current status requires checking with UKVI.
The relevant national body publishes its decisions and its shortage notifications directly, and those are the primary sources rather than any secondary summary.
Happy to be the one who is wrong here if it settles the question.
Source for the MHRA statements figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
Everything in post #74 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
I disagree with the framing of MHRA statements 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.
Thank you for the correction. I would rather find out here than later.
Two things can be true about MHRA statements 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.
Post #80 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Where the compound is supplied with a device, the device and the compound have separate availability positions and the device is more often the constraint.
Reporting the observation and leaving the explanation open deliberately.
Whatever the answer on MHRA statements turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, invite the correction.
Narrowing post #83, because the general version has more than one answer.
Occupational health screening: some UK occupations require medical checks. Disclosure of weight-loss medication might be relevant to employment screening; understand your obligations.
I am aware this is the third time this month I have made this point.
What I want from this MHRA statements 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.
I read post #83 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Importing for personal use: importing a prescription-only medicine without a prescription is not lawful. Material sold as research-use-only is not a licensed medicine regardless of content.
Noting that I have skin in this question and have tried to discount for it.
Post #87 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
I have been on both sides of the MHRA statements argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.