anders_CPH said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
VendorMark said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsVendorMark said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The shortage clause is the answer to the second question and it is a subtraction rather than an addition. Both exemptions forbid compounding something that is essentially a copy of a commercially available approved product. A product FDA has listed as in shortage is not treated as commercially available, so listing removed the objection that otherwise blocked compounding. It never created a permission; it withdrew a prohibition, which is why it evaporated the moment the supply fact changed.
Worth separating that from compounded supply, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Closing the loop on my own question.
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.