How compounding permissions changed when supply normalised

On post #11 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why this category is maintained as documentation, not as recommendations: the goal is factual accuracy and sourcing, not endorsement of any specific regulatory position.

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.

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.

On post #18 — 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.

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.

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.

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 #24 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.

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.

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.