Availability by country, dated, with primary sources

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

Coming back to post #15, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Country-by-country legality: compound approval and legal status differ substantially by jurisdiction. Semaglutide approved in the United States and European Union; tirzepatide approved in some but not all; retatrutide approved nowhere yet (ongoing trials).

Picking up post #15: that is the part I would want checked first.

Regulatory position dates: a regulatory position is only current as of when it was written. Rechecking is prudent, especially if you saw it months ago.

Customs and import outcomes: different routes have different seizure rates. Some countries are stricter on peptide imports than others. History on a route is more predictive than theory.

post #19 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Insurance and coverage: coverage decisions are national. A compound approved in one country might not be covered by insurance in another. Checking both approval and coverage is necessary.

Import rules for personal use: what you can import for personal use depends on your country's rules, not on where it is sold. Checking your country's rules before ordering is prudent.

On post #18 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Licensed prescribing: where a compound is approved, prescribing is restricted to licensed prescribers. Where it is not approved, the legality of possession and use is unclear.

Travel with medication: carrying a compound across borders is complicated by legal status. Documenting that it is prescribed and carrying proof reduces (but does not eliminate) risk.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

Language barriers: if you need to communicate with a supplier, clinician, or regulator in a language not your first language, misunderstanding is possible. Clarify when in doubt.

Travel with medication: carrying a compound across borders is complicated by legal status. Documenting that it is prescribed and carrying proof reduces (but does not eliminate) risk.

This follows post #24 rather than contradicting it.

Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.

Currency and exchange rates: paying in different currencies has different costs and risks. Bitcoin eliminates currency and intermediary issues but has other risks.

post #28 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Regulatory position dates: a regulatory position is only current as of when it was written. Rechecking is prudent, especially if you saw it months ago.

Country-by-country legality: compound approval and legal status differ substantially by jurisdiction. Semaglutide approved in the United States and European Union; tirzepatide approved in some but not all; retatrutide approved nowhere yet (ongoing trials).