This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Compounding and pharmacy rules: some jurisdictions allow a pharmacy to compound a drug that is not on the market under specific conditions. The conditions are strict and vary by jurisdiction. Generalising from one country's rules to another's is unreliable.
Import restrictions vary by compound and by jurisdiction: what is a controlled substance in one place is legal to purchase in another. What you can import for personal use depends on your country's rules, not on where it is sold.
On post #30 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Off-label use and medical practice: clinicians can prescribe approved medications off-label under some circumstances. That is different from research-use-only compounds, which are not approved for any human use.
This follows post #32 rather than contradicting it.
Approval versus licensing: a compound can be approved for a specific indication in one country and not approved at all in another. Tracking jurisdictional approval is tedious but necessary.
Research-use-only status is a legal classification, not a safety classification. It means the compound is sold for laboratory use and not for human consumption. The label does not establish whether the molecule is safe, efficacious, or toxic.
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.
Why this category is maintained as documentation, not as recommendations: the goal is factual accuracy and sourcing, not endorsement of any specific regulatory position.
Coming back to post #38, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.
Regulatory positions change: a compound's status today might differ from its status a year from now. Citing a regulatory position is worth doing only with a date attached.
Off-label use and medical practice: clinicians can prescribe approved medications off-label under some circumstances. That is different from research-use-only compounds, which are not approved for any human use.
Coming back to post #43, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Preclinical versus clinical: compounds with strong preclinical data can fail in clinical trials. Compounds with no human data are being used on theoretical grounds. The regulatory position reflects this asymmetry.
Picking up post #43: that is the part I would want checked first.
Approval versus licensing: a compound can be approved for a specific indication in one country and not approved at all in another. Tracking jurisdictional approval is tedious but necessary.
Research-use-only status is a legal classification, not a safety classification. It means the compound is sold for laboratory use and not for human consumption. The label does not establish whether the molecule is safe, efficacious, or toxic.
Compounding and pharmacy rules: some jurisdictions allow a pharmacy to compound a drug that is not on the market under specific conditions. The conditions are strict and vary by jurisdiction. Generalising from one country's rules to another's is unreliable.
I read post #47 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Import restrictions vary by compound and by jurisdiction: what is a controlled substance in one place is legal to purchase in another. What you can import for personal use depends on your country's rules, not on where it is sold.
For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.
On post #48 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Regulatory positions change: a compound's status today might differ from its status a year from now. Citing a regulatory position is worth doing only with a date attached.
Compounding and pharmacy rules: some jurisdictions allow a pharmacy to compound a drug that is not on the market under specific conditions. The conditions are strict and vary by jurisdiction. Generalising from one country's rules to another's is unreliable.
Import restrictions vary by compound and by jurisdiction: what is a controlled substance in one place is legal to purchase in another. What you can import for personal use depends on your country's rules, not on where it is sold.
post #54 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Why this category is maintained as documentation, not as recommendations: the goal is factual accuracy and sourcing, not endorsement of any specific regulatory position.
Worth separating two things that post #52 runs together.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
Preclinical versus clinical: compounds with strong preclinical data can fail in clinical trials. Compounds with no human data are being used on theoretical grounds. The regulatory position reflects this asymmetry.
post #58 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Primary documents matter: regulatory positions are published in official documents. Reading the regulatory agency's website directly is more reliable than reading a forum summary of it.