Read the primary source rather than the write-up and the two do not agree, so here is what is actually in it.
The variables that decide how a cross-border order goes are declaration wording, the destination country's import rules for prescription medicines, and whether the shipment looks commercial. Personal-import allowances exist in some jurisdictions and not in others, and where they exist they are usually conditional on a prescription and a quantity limit. The failure mode is normally a seizure notice rather than anything worse, and a reshipment policy is the thing worth confirming before ordering rather than after.
Where I think it is weakest: the population was selected and supported in ways a real cohort is not, so I would read the effect size as a ceiling rather than an expectation.
What I am after is which of the variables in a cross-border order actually determine the outcome, and which are superstition. Not looking for reassurance. Looking for the part I have got wrong.
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.
TinaHashiRN said:The variables that decide how a cross-border order goes are declaration wording, the destination country's import rules for prescription medicines,…
Agreed, and hsCRP is worth reading alongside them. The inflammatory-marker fall is often the most striking change on a panel and it is consistent with the cardiovascular outcome data.
TinaHashiRN said:The variables that decide how a cross-border order goes are declaration wording, the destination country's import rules for prescription medicines,…
I read this differently from TinaHashiRN, on substance rather than tone. Import rules are jurisdiction-specific and this board keeps giving US-shaped answers to non-US questions. What is a personal-import allowance in one country is a controlled-import offence in another.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThis one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. ApoB is the more informative number and it is cheap. LDL-C estimates cholesterol mass in atherogenic particles; ApoB counts the particles, and it is particle count that tracks risk — which is why the two can disagree and why the disagreement is the clinically interesting case. Triglycerides fall substantially with weight loss and improved insulin sensitivity, HDL moves modestly, and LDL-C often barely moves at all, which surprises people who expected everything to improve together.
LarryQC_SD said:Agreed, and hsCRP is worth reading alongside them.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.