labquiet_amy said:

They are two different exemptions from the same federal requirements and they buy different things.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.

sarah_nash92 said:

My pharmacy stopped supplying with three weeks notice and a letter that explained nothing, so I went and read the statute.

Compounding pharmacy red flag checklist for compounded supply — if ANY of these apply, find a different source:

1. No verifiable physical address
2. No pharmacist available for consultation
3. COA not available or clearly template/fake
4. Prices dramatically below market ($30-40/month = suspicious)
5. No prescription required
6. Ships without cold pack or temperature control
7. No batch/lot numbers on product labeling
8. Pushes "research use only" products for human injection

Your health depends on product quality. Don't cut corners on source verification.

CarlaRPh_TPA said:

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

I have been on both brand and compounded, and in the context of compounded supply, my experience has been equivalent with both. The key is finding a reliable 503B pharmacy with independent testing.

One thing that is still open after rachel_ABQ’s answer:

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

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

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.