Pharmaceutical compounding rules, summarised from primary sources — a second dataset posts 31–57

An indication approved for one age range does not extend to another, and paediatric extensions are separate decisions with separate evidence.

Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.

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.

One case, stated as one case.

Everything in post #31 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

Practical note on Pharmaceutical compounding rules: write down what you expect before you look. The number of times I have found what I went looking for is higher than chance would allow.

Acknowledging rather than arguing. The reasoning holds as far as I can follow it.

Adding the boring version of Pharmaceutical compounding rules, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.

Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.

Post #35 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

Contradicting a claim in this subcategory is most useful when it comes with a link to the primary source and a date of access.

Answering the question post #35 raises rather than the one it answers.

Two things can be true about Pharmaceutical compounding rules at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.

I keep a log for Pharmaceutical compounding rules specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.

Worth separating two things that post #35 runs together.

Import rules for personal quantities differ from commercial import rules and both differ by country. Establishing your own position is not something a forum can do for you.

Worth separating Pharmaceutical compounding rules as a question about the compound from Pharmaceutical compounding rules as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.

Two claims get bundled together under Pharmaceutical compounding rules 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.

Answering the question post #38 raises rather than the one it answers.

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 rather this thread reach "we do not know" about Pharmaceutical compounding rules than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.

On Pharmaceutical compounding rules, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.

If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.