Proviron/Mesterolone Question

[NorCalBdyBldr]

Does anyone know if Mesterolone AKA Proviron is legally available within the U.S.A. by prescription from a doctor in the U.S.A. for "medical need"--i.e., does it have an approved FDA medical use? Or is it only availabe (probably illegally) from foreign (non U.S.A.) sources? I believe it is listed as schedule III but am not sure. I couldn't find it in my 2003 version of the PDR (physician's desk reference) but I know for a fact that there are pharmaceuticals that are available by legal scrip for a valid medical purpose in the U.S. that aren't listed there.

What are the legalities of a doctor prescribing a foreign non-FDA approved substance like this for a patient for import from a foreign pharmacy?

I would love to hear any information any of you guys know about this.

 

[manny78]

I might be wrong but Provirion is not approved (at least anymore) in the US as well as Canada.

Dunno about the US but in Canada, docs may refer someone for what they called "experimental treatments". For example, oxandrolone is not approved here. Not anynome but some kids with abnormal growth problems, got the opportunity to try ox. The same is seen sometimes with anadrol. My mom was till recently on this stuff even if it doesn't appear on Health Canada's list.

 

[Rick Collins]

Unapproved New Drugs

As to your last question, Customs has the discretion to confiscate foreign pharmaceuticals under the Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act. However, they have discretionary guidelines permitting the importation under certain circumstances (set forth in various places, including the FDA web site, LEGAL MUSCLE, and possibly even the Customs web site). These guidelines were the original basis for the so-called "3 month supply" rule people talk about. Note, however, that FDA guidelines do not invalidate the Controlled Substances Act, and Proviron is schedule III.

 

[NorCalBdyBldr]

"As to your last question, Customs has the discretion to confiscate foreign pharmaceuticals under the Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act. However, they have discretionary guidelines permitting the importation under certain circumstances (set forth in various places, including the FDA web site, LEGAL MUSCLE, and possibly even the Customs web site). These guidelines were the original basis for the so-called "3 month supply" rule people talk about. Note, however, that FDA guidelines do not invalidate the Controlled Substances Act, and Proviron is schedule III."


Just so I have this clear.......the 90 day FDA "personal use" policy is mostly just a guideline, but in reality is actually just a politically motivated foible because it doesn't seem to mean anything in any concrete way that I can tell as far as being legally "allowed" to bring anything that is FDA disallowed, non FDA approved, or scheduled into the U.S. for legitimate as well as "other" personal medical use. It would seem that importation of any non FDA approved drug is still illegal, regardless of the policy, and subject to confiscation by U.S. Customs or other appropriate authority be it the U.S. Postal inspector, FDA, or DEA, etc. aside from local/state authorities and THEIR specific laws/guidelines/authority(ies). This would likely also be the case even if a medical doctor felt the medication would benefit his/her patient for a specific medical condition as well, possibly even better than drugs currently approved by FDA in the U.S. The policy, in effect, is likely arbitrarily enforced, subject to varying interpretation(s), and only serves the purpose of reducing the likelihood that FDA will persue the matter legally other than just confiscation of the offending item(s). I am assuming that this also influences decisions made by U.S. Customs and the U.S. Postal Inspector and is why they appear to lean towards confiscation when discovered rather than prosectuion for personal use amounts but may still prosecute in some cases. If it is not a scheduled substance, DEA has no jurisdiction in the matter.

I would also take it that schedule III substances, like Proviron, could only be imported by a physician for his patient(s) for special use following the approval of an IND (Investigational New Drug) by FDA. Of course the likelihood that ANY PHYSICIAN would do this for a controlled substance seems VERY remote (it seems to me that this was the very issue that got Walter Jekot, M.D. of Los Angeles in prison for five years by not following the "proper" prodedure for obtaining foreign schedule III substances, in his case--foreign made AAS--which he felt would work better than the then available U.S. made AAS for his AIDS patients and treatment for wasting syndrome).

So this brings me to another but related question. If the all powerful "they" confiscate your package, do "they" maintain a "names/address" list and share, interagency style, information on that list that starts creating a tracking and monitoring process for the individual? Further, is such information collected for the purpose of eventually establishing "reasonable/probable cause" for the issuance of a search warrant that sets the individual up for later home "inspection(s)" with a warrant by whatever the interested "authorities" happen to be? If such a "list" exists, does it increase the likelihood that any package sent to the addressee or address is far more likely to be scrutinized? Can the "list" information also be used in court to show a history of "suspicious/illegal" activity and package confiscations without acknowledgement of the "Customs letter(s)" by the respondent for conviction/sentencing purposes? What is the likelihood that this is now the case as a "fall out effect" because of the "Patriot I and II acts" that were alledgedly passed for "anti terrorism" purposes but because of the legal wording, could quite realistically be expanded out far beyond the original intent of "tracking/monitoring terrorist?"

So correct me if my understanding is incorrect or missing something in the interpretation or if I am being overly paranoid. As I am not a lawyer (obviously) I certainly admit that I can misunderstand some of the finer legal points/issues as certain issues like "fairness," "equity," "common sense," and "the law" are not necessarily congruent. Thanks, and don't worry about the length of your posts, I am VERY interested in everything you have to say and I DO have an attention span that is clearly longer than that of a nat...LOL, unlike SOME readers.