Revisiting: German, French and Dutch differences, compared posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
The reason German keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown.
Post #31 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Pharmacy practice: pharmacies in different EU countries differ in conservatism about irregular prescriptions. Some will decline a prescription they consider irregular; others will not. Local pharmacy culture matters.
Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.
Adding the measurement that post #31 says would settle it.
Reading back through the German threads from last year, the same three questions come up every time and only one of them has ever been answered properly. That seems like a documentation gap rather than a knowledge gap.
What I would want before treating German as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.
Nothing here is medical or legal advice, and this subcategory in particular attracts questions where that matters.
That is a fair summary of where the discussion has got to.
The arithmetic in post #35 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Answering the German question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.
I read post #35 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Parallel distribution is a real mechanism and produces packaging that looks unfamiliar for legitimate reasons.
I would not lead a decision with this, but I would not ignore it either.
I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on German, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.
Building on post #40 rather than restating it.
Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one: has anyone here actually observed German, as opposed to read about it? The thread is long and I cannot tell.
Practical answer on German, 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.
Everything in post #42 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Date every claim. Positions in this subcategory have moved repeatedly and the archive keeps posts permanently.
That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.
Post #42 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
The version of German that circulates here is a simplification of a simplification. It is not wrong, but it has lost the conditions under which it holds, and those conditions are where the interesting cases live.
Helpful, and easy to find again, which is half of what a good reply is.
Regional stock held inside the union removes a customs question entirely for intra-union movement, which is a practical difference rather than a legal opinion.
Adding it in case it saves somebody the afternoon it cost me.
The thing about German that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.
Post #49 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Correcting a stale claim here is more valuable than adding a new one, because the stale claims are what people find first.
German: 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 device-and-compound combination has one authorisation and two supply chains, and the device is more often the limiting one.
That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.