This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Source for the Research-use-only labelling figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
Understood. Thank you for being specific about the limits of it.
Picking up post #61: that is the part I would want checked first.
Nothing in this subcategory is legal advice, and the members who work in regulated environments are the most careful to say so.
On post #60 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use anywhere. That is a statement about the material's regulatory category rather than about its quality.
Where I part company with post #65, and it is a narrow parting.
A request rather than an answer: could whoever has the primary source for Research-use-only labelling post it? I have seen the claim three times this month and each version had lost a qualifier.
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.
The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.
Post #68 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline 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.
Nothing above should be read as advice about what anyone else should do.
Sensible. I would want the same detail before I acted on it either.
Worth separating two things that post #71 runs together.
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.
Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.
This follows post #71 rather than contradicting it.
Adding a small correction to the Research-use-only labelling summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.
One caution on Research-use-only labelling: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.
I had written a reply contradicting post #75 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Small methodological point on Research-use-only labelling: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
Careful with the language on Research-use-only labelling. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
Post #78 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline 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.
This is the first time the answer has come with its own limits attached. Appreciated.
A label change is a regulatory event with a date and a document. Citing the document is what makes a claim about labelling checkable.
None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any.
Post #85 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
What I want from this Research-use-only labelling thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
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.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.