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.
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.
This follows post #60 rather than contradicting it.
Labelling and intended use: a compound sold as "research-use-only" does not change its pharmacology if ingested. It changes the legal status of the sale. The labelling tells you the intended use, not the actual use people make of it.
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.
Why this category is maintained as documentation, not as recommendations: the goal is factual accuracy and sourcing, not endorsement of any specific regulatory position.
On post #62 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
post #68 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
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.
Picking up post #69: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
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.
I read post #73 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
This follows post #73 rather than contradicting it.
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.
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.
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.
This follows post #78 rather than contradicting it.
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.
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.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What a regulator's shortage notice actually authorises — what changed since
The question in the title: What a regulator's shortage notice actually authorises — what changed since I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. A logistics question, since the…
|
+22 | 26 | 53k | 7mo |
|
Research-use-only labelling: what it means and what it does not — the long version
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Research-use-only labelling: what it means and what it does not — the long version Everything below is what sits behind that. I would like to talk about…
|
+150 | 158 | 55k | 14mo |
|
Follow-up: How compounding permissions changed when supply normalised
How compounding permissions changed when supply normalised I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Structured report rather than an opinion, following the…
|
+72 | 77 | 1.5k | 1d |
|
Research-use-only labelling: what it means and what it does not
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Research-use-only labelling: what it means and what it does not Everything below is what sits behind that. I would like to talk about documentation quality as a…
|
+100 | 110 | 37k | 5mo |
|
Second pass at: Import rules for personal quantities, by jurisdiction, dated
Second pass at: Import rules for personal quantities, by jurisdiction, dated Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A logistics question, since the answers here are…
|
2 | 5k | 11mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Why catalogue breadth is not evidence of anything — what changed since
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why catalogue breadth is not evidence of anything — what changed since Session topic: SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022). Please read it before…
|
+62 | 66 | 26k | 10mo |
|
How to research a compound with no human data without deceiving yourself
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: How to research a compound with no human data without deceiving yourself Session topic: STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it before posting; the…
|
+107 | 119 | 11k | 12mo |
|
Pen wastage and its effect on real cost — the long version
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Pen wastage and its effect on real cost — the long version Everything below is what sits behind that. Documenting an access outcome, dated, because everything in…
|
2 | 34k | 13mo | |
|
A payment that went through twice: how it was resolved
A payment that went through twice: how it was resolved Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I would like to talk about documentation quality as a signal,…
|
+20 | 24 | 55k | 3mo |
|
Coming back to: When "no data" is the complete and final answer
When "no data" is the complete and final answer I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. I have seen SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021) cited in support of a claim I…
|
+77 | 82 | 12k | 11mo |