Personal import allowances, compared — a second dataset

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.

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.

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.

post #56 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.

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.

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.

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.

Worth separating two things that post #104 runs together.

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.

post #128 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Compounding in different countries: some countries allow pharmacy compounding under defined conditions; others do not. The rules are jurisdiction-specific and change.