Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.

Dr.SportsMedIN said:

Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent…

Same pattern here, and in the same order.

Dr.SportsMedIN said:

Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent…

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.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

Following on from Dr.SportsMedIN — 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?