How compounding permissions changed when supply normalised I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below.
I was wrong about compounding permissions in a thread last spring and I would like to correct it publicly rather than quietly.
The error was in the units, which changed the conclusion by an order of magnitude. Setting out the corrected version, and the way I now check for that class of mistake.
Two claims get bundled together under compounding permissions and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
I read the opening post twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Nothing in this subcategory is legal advice, and the members who work in regulated environments are the most careful to say so.
Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.
This follows the opening post rather than contradicting it.
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 would put the burden of proof on the interesting explanation, not the dull one.
On the opening post — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
An indication approved for one age range does not extend to another, and paediatric extensions are separate decisions with separate evidence.
That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.
Speaking only to compounding permissions as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.
I disagree with the framing of compounding permissions above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it.
Worth separating two things that post #5 runs together.
A compound in a compounding pathway in one country and unavailable in another is a common situation and produces most of the confusion here.
It is the kind of thing that is obvious once and never again.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
Appreciated. The plain phrasing does more work here than a longer post would.
On post #9 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Careful with the language on compounding permissions. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
Thank you — that answers what I came here to find out.
If you can confirm or contradict a position for your own region, please date the answer. An undated regional claim is the least useful thing in this category.
Where I would push back on the compounding permissions consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed.
Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.
Distinguishing three things in the compounding permissions discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
On post #22 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
I think the compounding permissions question is answerable and has not been answered, which is a more optimistic position than most of this thread.
Post #25 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
A compound in a compounding pathway in one country and unavailable in another is a common situation and produces most of the confusion here.
That is the honest state of it as of this week.
Where the compounding permissions reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.
Post #29 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Small methodological point on compounding permissions: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.