The rule applies to any FDA-regulated mail shipment from any country, including smaller medication pipelines from India, the United Kingdom, Australia and Turkey. It doesn’t change regulations around Americans who buy medication in person while traveling.
I can’t say I’ve ever had customs evaluate my toiletries bag and medications in the past 20 years of travel. If they did, I suspect that as long as it sees to be in the normal “personal use” range of quantities I think we are fine, but do your own research. I have seen this scenario on social media: 2.5 year rapa supply ordered, thanks for the advice! - #27 by RapAdmin
This is great news. Makes it a bit more expensive per year i.e. 4@20=80 annual prescriptions and then the charge for freight 4@35=140 as opposed to $35 (ordering once a year) though these costs will spread over few meds as opposed to just one, so shouldn’t be too bad. Still way cheaper than sourcing it in USA.
The only part that it’s not clear is when they say “Prices will differ from now onwards”, I hope it doesn’t mean doubling in prices or something like that.
I need to reduce my inventory slightly before ordering.
Hopefully, someone who needs an order soon can get prices and post them here. I typically order: rosuvastatin, telmisartan, empagliflozin, sirolimus, and acarbose.
Two days ago ordered some skin fillers from France by DHL delivery. Got a message from DHL today that delivery is scheduled for this Friday, Oct 16. No mention of any delays, fees, etc. and signature is not required.
FWIW, I asked if there was any type of reship/refund policy and he said no. That was a fine answer as I was only asking…. Maybe that was just to me Or it’s new!
Ola! Yes - glad to hear you found an option.
And I’m not sure that would work for me…
I am in a rapa family. Me, my husband and furries all
take a dose once a week. Annual usage?
600 pills every year! And it is not easy to find
vets who will prescribe pet doses around here.
Sigh…
I think this annoyance is a good time to experiment with less frequent dosing. I have started dosing bempadoic acid EOD. In January I’ll see how much my aboB increased. I’m betting it will rise very little since I’m already quite low (also using raptha). I’ll report back then. If it works then I’ve essentially doubled my inventory. If anyone has studies on this question please share. I could not find any hard data.
You are joining a hallowed American tradition. Desperate patients priced out of medication availability traditionally resort to pill cutting, dose lowering, missed doses and other heart rending measures. Sometimes that has tragic consequences, as when insulin users keep cutting doses to stretch out their supply and unfortunately sadly pass away. Now I see necessity has driven biohackers to join that tradition, although obviously in their cases it’s often not an acute matter of life and death, so there is some discretion.
So I hear you, and sympathize. I’m sad we’ve reached such a point, but you gotta do what you gotta do. It feels more and more like we’re being gradually strangled and all we can do is try to somehow eke out survival in increasingly dark times.
Thanks for the thought but if EOD turns out to be an insignificant effect then I’ll be grateful for the kick in the pants. My addictions are very powerful; I need all the help I can get.
Kelman!!! I just lost my 18 year old two weeks ago, but that rockstar cat and my 17 and 19 year olds are anything but a nuisance!!! The point, just as with humans, is keeping them as healthy as possible as long as possible.
I lost a cat recently to cancer (he was 16), and the whole point of life prolonging drugs like rapa is to help keep the pets alive longer in better health rather than as you say hard of hearing, demented, with CKD etc. - my only regret is not starting my cat on rapa when he was still healthy. If I can have my current cat (just today I came back with him from the vet - teeth cleaning) live into his senior years in good health, I think rapamycin (and SGLT2i for kidneys etc.) is a laughably small price to pay. If I run low, I’ll find a way to get more - I would never abandon my pet to “natural decline” if I can help it, quality of life is important and we do what we can for friends and family/pets. But everyone is different - a guy I knew from work divorced his wife the moment she was diagnosed with breast cancer; this is something outside of my brain capacity, I cannot even conceive of doing that if my wife, or my cat got sick or just old. Meawhile many people abandon pets when a health challenge or old age comes along, hey there’s always a new puppy. To each their own. YMMV.
My golden retriever Glory was in the first phase of the Matt Kaeberlein Dog Aging Project. She was on the real pill, not the placebo. She had a good life with some health challenges towards the end until she passed away one week shy of 14. That is great for a golden!
I don’t want to be eternal. I want to live, live, live! then go to bed one night and wake up dead. Hah! Quality of life matters to me more than longevity.
My furries are my family, along with my spouse. So, I choose BOTH to protect, care for, and give the rapa to! Life is too short to short those I love…
I am afraid the other shoe has not yet dropped: The rules about RX + 90 day limit only applies after Oct 22 if:
You are NOT a Citizen (or Permanent Resident) of USA. OR
You are ordering a medicine NOT available in USA (regardless of price), in which case you will need an RX from a non-US doctor.
So this might allow after Oct (for US citizens) for importation of Imeglimin, as an example of something discussed on rapamycin.news recently as a superior replacement for Metformin.
PS: To clarify the logic : If you are a US Citizen (or Permanent Resident) you can only import medicines that are NOT available in USA by mail after Oct 22, and in addition will require an RX (from a non-US doctor) and be limited to 90 days supply per shipment. There is also an additional requirement that you need a Note from your US doctor that they are aware of your use of this medicine that is NOT approved in USA.
I wish, though, that the reporting would stop passing along FDA tag lines uncritically. The majority of the new rules have virtually nothing to do with illicit drugs. How, for example, is a legitimate concern about opioids – one I share completely – addressed by the regulatory component requiring that an imported drug not be available in the US? Or, how does mandating that price differential not be a consideration in prohibiting importation address the importation of opioids?
As you point out, FDA “concern about opiods” is just a fig leaf for their real agenda - working to deprive you of options and enable big pharma extortion of patients, with zero concern for those patients who are injured or killed because they don’t have the means to pay the ransom. The “war on drugs” is extended beyond its stated purposes to instead deprive or limit citizens’ vital rights. It’s a well known technique used to establish authoritarian control in any context. Here “for opiods” is exactly the same technique as “for the children” being used to pass restrictive laws that cannot reveal their real goals as that would be seen as unacceptable, so they need a disguise.
That said, this might give people additional time to get their stash replenished. What would be really great, is if this was prelude to shelving these new rules altogether. Likely they heard back from angry voters - may we be so lucky!
Or it’s new!
