TrialTracker_MD said:

The shortage clause is the answer to the second question and it is a subtraction rather than an addition.

Pushing back on TrialTracker_MD here. A research-chemical supplier selling lyophilised powder labelled research use only is not compounding and is not claiming to. It is a different legal universe with no pharmacy oversight, no patient relationship and no content guarantee, and conflating the two in these threads helps nobody.

jason_sac26 said:

Two pharmacies quoted me last year, one describing itself as 503A and one as 503B, and I assumed 503B just meant bigger until both stopped within…

503A vs 503B compounding pharmacies for compounded supply — this distinction matters enormously:

I strongly recommend 503B facilities. The FDA oversight and cGMP requirements mean more consistent product quality.

CarlaRPh_TPA said:

A research-chemical supplier selling lyophilised powder labelled research use only is not compounding and is not claiming to.

Vendor communication red flags for compounded supply:

• Won't provide COA before purchase — walk away
• Claims "100% pure" without analytical data — unrealistic
• No physical address or phone number — accountability matters
• Pushes you to buy more than you need — pressure tactics
• Won't answer questions about their compounding process — transparency is key
• Payment only via crypto or wire transfer — legitimate pharmacies accept cards

A legitimate compounding pharmacy operates like a healthcare business, not a gray market dealer.

Following on from MASHdoc_SA — and this may be the naive question:

Why a shortage listing created a legal pathway at all, since a shortage is a supply fact rather than a permission?

Reporting back.

The bulks-list asymmetry was the piece I had missed entirely. It explains why one of my two pharmacies is still arguing it can supply and the other simply stopped.