Coming back to: Research-use-only labelling: what it means and what it does not posts 31–51
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Worth separating two things that post #32 runs together.
Filing a mild objection to the consensus on Research-use-only labelling. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.
On post #36 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Nothing in this subcategory is legal advice, and the members who work in regulated environments are the most careful to say so.
Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.
The most useful thing anyone has posted about Research-use-only labelling in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.
Post #41 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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.
I am reporting what happened, not recommending it.
I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about Research-use-only labelling than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.
I read post #41 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Post #45 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Adding a null result on Research-use-only labelling. I looked, carefully, and found nothing, and null results deserve posting precisely because they never are.
A note on scope: what I am saying about Research-use-only labelling applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking.
Useful. I had the fact and not the reason, which turns out to be the important half.
Coming back to post #45, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Where a claim about legality is made here, the useful follow-up is which instrument it rests on. Most such claims turn out to rest on a forum post.
A weak preference rather than a position.
Thank you for the correction. I would rather find out here than later.
This topic was referenced in
- About the Regulatory categorySourcing › Regulatory · 4 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Labelling requirements for research chemicals — the long version
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Labelling requirements for research chemicals — the long version Everything below is what sits behind that. A narrow question about Labelling requirements for…
|
2 | 1.8k | 2mo | |
|
Enforcement priorities versus written rules
Enforcement priorities versus written rules — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Asking what a regulator's document actually says, since the summaries of it disagree. I have…
|
2 | 62k | 15mo | |
|
Prescription requirements and telehealth models — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: Prescription requirements and telehealth models — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on Prescription requirements and telehealth…
|
+87 | 94 | 1.1k | 21d |
|
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. I was wrong about compounding permissions in a thread last…
|
+72 | 77 | 1.5k | 1d |
|
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. Asking what a regulator's document actually…
|
2 | 5k | 11mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags MHRA, personal import, research use only
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 Question about what the published evidence for this compound actually…
|
+107 | 119 | 11k | 12mo |
|
Enforcement priorities versus written rules — does this still hold?
Enforcement priorities versus written rules — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Asking what a regulator's document actually says,…
|
+36 | 40 | 37k | 11mo |
|
Cross-border purchase within the EU: the actual rules
Cross-border purchase within the EU: the actual rules Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on cross-border…
|
+6 | 10 | 41k | 11mo |
|
Irish differences from the UK position — what changed since
Irish differences from the UK position — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. What changes if the standard account of Irish differences is wrong? I ask…
|
+8 | 12 | 782 | 1d |
|
Compounds this community declines to help with, and why — does this still hold?
Compounds this community declines to help with, and why — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Putting the numbers in the first post,…
|
+3 | 7 | 26k | 7h |