GOOGLE IT! Australian federal police chemist tested it(claims), found compound not listed on label and related to meth! Wtf?
Search Massivejoes youtube video, reads letter from TGA I believe.GOOGLE IT! Australian federal police chemist tested it, found compound not listed on label and related to meth! Wtf?
CAS number 300-62-9[SUP] [/SUP] 405-41-4ATC code N06BA01 PubChem CID 3007 DrugBank DB00182 ChemSpider 13852819[SUP] [/SUP]UNII CK833KGX7E[SUP] [/SUP]KEGG D07445[SUP] [/SUP]ChEBI CHEBI:2679[SUP] [/SUP]ChEMBL CHEMBL405[SUP] [/SUP]NIAID ChemDB 018564 Synonyms alpha-methylbenzeneethanamine, alpha-methylphenethylamine, beta-phenyl-isopropylamine
PDB ligand ID FRD (PDBe, RCSB PDB)
Just relaying. Its been pulled! DS reps willing to chime in?^^^ thus, it makes absolutely no sense.
if it contained amphetamine(s), it would have been showing up.
this is not some analogue to amphetamine, but the real thing....i call strong bull****.
Nope, serious. It wasnt even tested by the TGA. The federal police have pulled it all off, everything to be destoryed. I have no idea whats going on, but tubs are going for 140$ on ebay!Lol, joke? Amphetamine is much better than Craze...
Nope, serious. It wasnt even tested by the TGA. The federal police have pulled it all off, everything to be destoryed. I have no idea whats going on, but tubs are going for 140$ on ebay!
Agreed. I took a urinalysis for work after taking craze and pissed clean.^^^ thus, it makes absolutely no sense.
if it contained amphetamine(s), it would have been showing up.
this is not some analogue to amphetamine, but the real thing....i call strong bull****.
put a space in the link somewhereIve got a link saying the charges were dropped as it was retested and found nothing but can't post it because i haven't posted 150 times.
My fault for taking a three year break from here
^^^ thus, it makes absolutely no sense.
if it contained amphetamine(s), it would have been showing up.
this is not some analogue to amphetamine, but the real thing....i call strong bull****.
No, the claimed it was n-alpha-DIETHYLlbenzeneethanaminethe compound they read out is a synonym for amphetamine...They claimed the ingredient was "n-alpha-methylbenzeneethanamine"...
Ive got a link saying the charges were dropped as it was retested and found nothing but can't post it because i haven't posted 150 times.
My fault for taking a three year break from here
i must have mis-heard him then. My mistake.No, the claimed it was n-alpha-DIETHYLlbenzeneethanamine
i must have mis-heard him then. My mistake.
edit: i googled that exact term and didn't get a single hit.
Not being slanderous on bb. Just want people to be aware Vaughn. Iforce does things the right way and obviously other companies do not. Which is why the thread already got deleted on bb. Oh well. We will just let it unfoldvery interesting
i was referring to your posts in the other thread here at AM.Not being slanderous on bb. Just want people to be aware Vaughn. Iforce does things the right way and obviously other companies do not. Which is why the thread already got deleted on bb. Oh well. We will just let it unfold
like i said... If I have been ingesting these types of chemicals without knowing... that's where my problem lies. If craze was completely legit and everything was on the label then cool. This has been going on too long and it's things like this that ruin the industry. I guess we will just let it continue to unfold.i was referring to your posts in the other thread here at AM.
Not sure. However, I believe a renowned chemist was able to find analogues based on certain batch numbers but this is all alleged of course.Besides the one mythical youtube video, is there any other proof that it contains this analogue?
And where is that proof? Can you be so kind as to point me to it?Not sure. However, I believe a renowned chemist was able to find analogues based on certain batch numbers but this is all alleged of course.
Thanks. But that's not exactly proof one way or the other. Craze may in fact contain this analogue, who knows, but so far here is all the evidence that has been unearthed...a youtube video, personal opinions about things feeling different (not exactly scientific, as I also have old tubs and newer tubs and can't tell/feel the difference). Is there anything out there (evidence) showing that this analogue is in the product?around here possibly... http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplements/197428-ds-craze-lawsuit-61.html
along with many first hand accounts of the differences...not being "slanderous" of course :blindfold: all of these personal accounts must be in their head.
actually pg 58 is better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyZe_vYbN-MBesides the one mythical youtube video, is there any other proof that it contains this analogue?
That's why I love PA
This is just my opinion as a consumer, someone who has purchased the product since its release, firstly, if there is in fact something illicit in the product, it should be banned immediately and those that profited from it should be punished appropriately. However, this thing has been an ongoing soap opera for months now. What some call "evidence" is basically suspicions, accusations and a handful of guys who love being embroiled in the drama of it all, so they post about this on every forum they can find. You have guys like R.Kramer who seemingly has it out for Cahill, also some others intent on beating this thing into the ground because well let's face it, it's the best preworkout to come along in years, it works, period.
Now before someone jumps down my throat, I'm not defening DS, Cahill or anyone else, if the product is indeed spiked with this analogue then as I've stated before, they should face the appropriate sanctions/punishments. But how is this thing allowed to go on for months, when the product was tested multiple times (nothing found...suspicions still remained), lawsuits dismissed with zero evidence turned over suggesting that anything illicit was found in the product. And now we have the smoking gun... a youtube video. Crikes.
I'm not a chemist or product formulator, I'll defer to more capable minds in that area. However, here is what I know, not one ounce of evidence has been presented yet to suggest that the product does in fact contain this analogue. Yes I know...a youtube video, case closed I guess.What then on the label do you honestly think is causing the effects people are getting?
I dont think anyone that really knew what to look for has tested this product (at least who would talk about it) until the aussie feds. It is a lot harder than you think to decipher all this, and the fact that the culprit compound (may have) appeared to people to be something expected on the label makes it kinda easy to accidentally skip over
When you really think about it, its not so implausible
And do you really care one way or another if its true? You know you love the product either way. Do you feel injured? if not than why care?
It is pretty much beyond the shadow of a doubt that craze has been banned from australia because all australia retailers and distributors are talking about it. the question is why was it banned? These people say they were told because it has an amphetamine analog. What does that mean? Suggestions are starting to arise that it is the compound I mentioned. NO there is no documentation but I am confident there will be something soon.I'm not a chemist or product formulator, I'll defer to more capable minds in that area. However, here is what I know, not one ounce of evidence has been presented yet to suggest that the product does in fact contain this analogue. Yes I know...a youtube video, case closed I guess.
Yes I enjoy the product, however, note that if something illicit is found in the product then I believe DS should be held accountable and I'd no longer use the product. Fair approach no? All I'm saying is this, where is the evidence to suggest that it contains the analogue discussed here apart from the factual treasure trove of information known as the mythical youtube? If there is evidence, cool, present it and Craze is out of here. I'm okay with that, even as someone who highly enjoys using the product. My point remains the same, this story has already been spun for months...where's the smoking gun?
Lol. I'm not emailing anyone. I live in the US, there are different product formulations for other markets outside of the US, based on their restrictions. That is hardly proof of anything. You're asking me to look at a youtube video, then to email "whoever" in Australia. This product has been on the market for well over a year now in the US. I'll wait until valid documentation is presented to make a judgment, or see if Mel Gibson emails me back.You could try emailing the TGA, CUSTOMS AND/OR FEDERAL POLICE. Its been pulled from shops nation wide. I think thats proof enough? We'll see if anymore information comes from retailers.
I My point remains the same, this story has already been spun for months...where's the smoking gun?
Fair enough, we shall see and if you're right you deserve credit for it. But if you're wrong and this is all for not, AGAIN, then I highly doubt you'll be criticized for it.In my perspective, it has just started to really play out. What transpired the last few months was piddly BS
Fair enough, we shall see and if you're right you deserve credit for it. But if you're wrong and this is all for not, AGAIN, then I highly doubt you'll be criticized for it.
On a side note, just got me thinking, this analogue was just recently discovered correct? According to google searches, I see mentions of the Australian ban going back as far as January,February. We're now into April and this is coming up now, almost two months later. Now people have claimed that the newer formula differs from the original, essentially it's weaker. So did the Aussies test the newer (supposedly weaker version), or the original version that some people are claiming is stronger? If DS did tweak the formula to remove anything questionable, then they (Aussies) must have either tested the old version or the counterfeits. I mean it would be pretty stupid of DS, with the level of scrutiny this product receives, to reformulate and still include the analogue. Doesn't make sense.
I was thinking the same thing. People claim the new batches are weaker, yet I assume the new ones were tested and it would be pretty stupid of DS to continue to spike(which I don't really know if they did because I feel no difference from the new or OG) Craze under that scrutiny.On a side note, just got me thinking, this analogue was just recently discovered correct? According to google searches, I see mentions of the Australian ban going back as far as January,February. We're now into April and this is coming up now, almost two months later. Now people have claimed that the newer formula differs from the original, essentially it's weaker. So did the Aussies test the newer (supposedly weaker version), or the original version that some people are claiming is stronger? If DS did tweak the formula to remove anything questionable, then they (Aussies) must have either tested the old version or the counterfeits. I mean it would be pretty stupid of DS, with the level of scrutiny this product receives, to reformulate and still include the analogue. Doesn't make sense.