hyun_seoul said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Coming at hyun_seoul’s question from a different direction. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What actually works on a prior-authorisation denial, as opposed to the list of things that sound like they should work?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.PathRoch said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Pushing back on Dr.PathRoch here. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update: approved on the third attempt after a peer-to-peer. Nothing about my case changed; only who was doing the talking.