Primordial Performance raided by FDA

Page 2 of 2 First 12

  1. This really sucks. I wish everyone at PP the best of luck in the future.
    ~Get shredded or die trying! The alphamine chapter~
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213632-get-shredded-die.html


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Force of Green View Post
    Thank you for seeing the bigger picture. As we gradually let the government know that we're okay with kissing their feet everytime they put their foot down and stomp on legitimate companies, we grant them more power. The power invested in the government is by the people. As the government grows stronger, the constitution becomes distorted and twisted, 'We The People' become confused and pre-occupied arguing with one another, and in essence become weaker. Sooner or later, we need to 'cycle-off' this idea that government will take care of us, because it's making our balls shrink worse than a year long cycle of Superdrol. It's not working and if you continue to support it, then have fun counting your moral inventory when we reach that cliff and collapse, because believe it or not we're almost there. We're bankrupt and the government is spending more and more money on things that aren't in our best interest.
    Irregardless of your personal views on the matter, it changes nothing. Everything else you've said is irrelevant for whats happened now with PP. In the end, if you are in the business of selling drugs or food etc. you are of concern to the FDA, just because you don't agree with what they do doesn't mean anything in the larger scale of things.

    And I dont want this to turn into a political debate, I have no time for it nor is it relevant at all. If you want to fight the FDA by all means, go ahead.
    •   
       


  3. 1. Irregardless isn't a word
    2. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to ads at all. Don't know what the hell you're talking about
    3. This does suck. I managed to get some a month ago so it'll be my last PP run I guess.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by jamesm11
    1. Irregardless isn't a word
    2. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to ads at all. Don't know what the hell you're talking about
    3. This does suck. I managed to get some a month ago so it'll be my last PP run I guess.
    I regard less:
    That's how my auto correct spelled it. Had to try.
    Use code "fl3x10" to get a free shirt with your purchase at Mind and Muscle

  5. so was the use of the word "steroids" in their marketing really the reason behind the raid? or is this all speculation still?
    •   
       


  6. yep my last run as well. did 4 weeks of bulk now doing 4 weeks of mass. i may go into depression...
    Performance Labs Product Specialist


  7. Quote Originally Posted by ThunderHumper
    so was the use of the word "steroids" in their marketing really the reason behind the raid? or is this all speculation still?
    As far as I know they haven't released a statement yet. It's all speculation right now.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by jamesm11 View Post
    1. Irregardless isn't a word
    2. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to ads at all. Don't know what the hell you're talking about
    3. This does suck. I managed to get some a month ago so it'll be my last PP run I guess.
    http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...h/irregardless
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irregardless

    Even words with controversy are legit to me haha. Chnage it to irrespective in your mind if it bothers you

  9. Double post
    Use code "fl3x10" to get a free shirt with your purchase at Mind and Muscle

  10. Quote Originally Posted by FL3X MAGNUM View Post
    Double post
    Stupid internet. Corrected it

  11. Quote Originally Posted by ThunderHumper View Post
    so was the use of the word "steroids" in their marketing really the reason behind the raid? or is this all speculation still?
    Let's just say the FDA doesn't waste too much time doing the "detective" work. There needs to be something that comes to their attention..

  12. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    Irregardless of your personal views on the matter, it changes nothing. Everything else you've said is irrelevant for whats happened now with PP. In the end, if you are in the business of selling drugs or food etc. you are of concern to the FDA, just because you don't agree with what they do doesn't mean anything in the larger scale of things.

    And I dont want this to turn into a political debate, I have no time for it nor is it relevant at all. If you want to fight the FDA by all means, go ahead.
    I don't have time to stay and argue with somebody who doesn't know his/her rights and argue AGAINST freedom, because that's what you're doing. I know that we can both go on and on, but do me a favor. While I load up a cargo van and make my way from Florida to New Jersey to get food/supplies to some shelters and get my family out of there, read up on the topic and the constitution. In the meantime we can agree to disagree.

    There's a few people in here that are capable of performing due diligence and who know better, but just read and remain silent. "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson. Maybe now's the time to speak up?

    The question is often asked: Does the First Amendment protect advertisements? Advertising is indeed protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, advertising or "commercial speech" enjoys somewhat less First Amendment protection from governmental encroachment than other types of speech. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), for example, may regulate speech that is found to be "deceptive." And the FTC keeps stepping up the types of commercial speech it regulates. Moreover, it uses a variety of tools to do so, but that is a discussion for another article.
    Under the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, No. 79-565, Supreme Court of the United States, 447 U.S. 557; 100 S. Ct. 2343; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 48; 65 L. Ed. 2d 341; 6 Media L. Rep. 1497; 34 P.U.R.4th 178, June 20, 1980, a state must justify restrictions on truthful, nonmisleading commercial speech by demonstrating that its actions "directly advance" a substantial state interest and are no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. This is the so-called Central Hudson Test.
    Commercial speech now clearly has prominent place in the rights protected by the First Amendment. A 1993 Supreme Court opinion summarized the general principles underlying the protection of commercial speech:
    "The commercial market place, like other spheres of our social and cultural life, provides a forum where ideas and information flourish. Some of the ideas and information are vital, some of slight worth. But the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented. Thus, even a communication that does no more than propose a commercial transaction is entitled to the coverage of the First Amendment." (Edenfield v. Fane, 123 L. Ed. 2d 543, 113 S. Ct. 1792, 1798 (1993).)
    At one time, purely commercial advertisements were considered to be outside the First Amendment's protection. (See Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52, 54, 86 L. Ed. 1262, 62 S. Ct. 920 (1942). That case, which was overruled, said the Constitution imposes no restraint on the government as to the regulation of "purely commercial advertising".
    While the U.S. Supreme Court has often acknowledged this constitutional protection, the Supreme Court's decisions have recognized the "'common sense' distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation, and other varieties of speech." (Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 455-56, 56 L. Ed. 2d 444, 98 S. Ct. 1912 (1978) (citing Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 771 n.24, 48 L. Ed. 2d 346, 96 S. Ct. 1817 (1976)).
    These distinctions have led the Court to conclude that "the Constitution . . . affords a lesser protection to commercial speech than to other constitutionally guaranteed expression." U.S. v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 125 L. Ed. 2d 345, 61 U.S.L.W. 4759, 4761 (1993) (citing Board of Trustees v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 477, 106 L. Ed. 2d 388, 109 S. Ct. 3028 (1989), Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Com., 447 U.S. 557, 563, 65 L. Ed. 2d 341, 100 S. Ct. 2343 (1980), and Ohralik, 436 U.S. at 456)).
    In Central Hudson, the Supreme Court set out the important four-part test for assessing government restrictions on commercial speech:
    "[First] . . . [the commercial speech] at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest."
    This four-part analysis endured to this day as the constitutional benchmark in commercial speech cases.
    In 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the Twenty-first Amendment does not qualify the constitutional prohibition against laws abridging the freedom of speech embodied in the First Amendment. The Twenty-first Amendment, therefore, cannot save Rhode Island's ban on liquor price advertising."
    The lawyers and attorneys can bicker it back and forth and all this does is distort the Constitution and confuse people about their rights and the principles that this country was built on.

    Godspeed and God Bless. If anyone has any advice about getting into NJ through the interstate (as in updates, I've lived there for 22 years) or needs food/supplies or knows anyone that needs food and supplies and isn't a far stray from the interstate, PM me.
    Freedom means nothing here.

  13. Just got the going out of business email. *tear

    Sent from my super duper VS920 4G using Am.com app!
    BLACK LION RESEARCH
    Supplements for bodybuilders
    Http://www.blacklionresearch.com

  14. Still haven't heard exactly how or why this went down but I found this guy post on PP home board interesting

    EMD (guys name)

    FWIW, I'm a senior executive in the pharmaceutical industry, and can share that in my experience this is exactly how the FDA generally gets involved in investigations of prescription drug marketing. Someone, usually a competitor, submits questionable marketing materials and initiates the process. Or, if related to adverse events, lawyers create class action "on behalf" of patients seeking their own payouts. Proactive raids are more the stuff of the DEA. My first thought when I heard about this was "competitive tip-off."

    Kind of makes you wonder who would do that

  15. Quote Originally Posted by NADDANME View Post
    Still haven't heard exactly how or why this went down but I found this guy post on PP home board interesting

    EMD (guys name)

    FWIW, I'm a senior executive in the pharmaceutical industry, and can share that in my experience this is exactly how the FDA generally gets involved in investigations of prescription drug marketing. Someone, usually a competitor, submits questionable marketing materials and initiates the process. Or, if related to adverse events, lawyers create class action "on behalf" of patients seeking their own payouts. Proactive raids are more the stuff of the DEA. My first thought when I heard about this was "competitive tip-off."

    Kind of makes you wonder who would do that
    This pretty much echoes what I know and have heard from employees of the FDA

  16. Quote Originally Posted by NADDANME
    Still haven't heard exactly how or why this went down but I found this guy post on PP home board interesting

    EMD (guys name)

    FWIW, I'm a senior executive in the pharmaceutical industry, and can share that in my experience this is exactly how the FDA generally gets involved in investigations of prescription drug marketing. Someone, usually a competitor, submits questionable marketing materials and initiates the process. Or, if related to adverse events, lawyers create class action "on behalf" of patients seeking their own payouts. Proactive raids are more the stuff of the DEA. My first thought when I heard about this was "competitive tip-off."

    Kind of makes you wonder who would do that
    So a certain Factory likely

  17. Quote Originally Posted by NADDANME View Post
    Still haven't heard exactly how or why this went down but I found this guy post on PP home board interesting

    EMD (guys name)

    FWIW, I'm a senior executive in the pharmaceutical industry, and can share that in my experience this is exactly how the FDA generally gets involved in investigations of prescription drug marketing. Someone, usually a competitor, submits questionable marketing materials and initiates the process. Or, if related to adverse events, lawyers create class action "on behalf" of patients seeking their own payouts. Proactive raids are more the stuff of the DEA. My first thought when I heard about this was "competitive tip-off."

    Kind of makes you wonder who would do that
    The FDA does not investigate claims from Indiv or "competitors tip-offs". They will investigate if there has been documented serious injuries. If they took tips from competitors they would be investigating every single supp company.

    Serious Nutrition Solution ~~

    mw at seriousnutritionsolutions dot com
    mike at competitiveedgelabs dot com


  18. Quote Originally Posted by Force of Green View Post
    I don't have time to stay and argue with somebody who doesn't know his/her rights and argue AGAINST freedom, because that's what you're doing. I know that we can both go on and on, but do me a favor. While I load up a cargo van and make my way from Florida to New Jersey to get food/supplies to some shelters and get my family out of there, read up on the topic and the constitution. In the meantime we can agree to disagree.
    Once again, you completly miss the point. There is no freedom of speech in advertising; there are rules and regulations that apply and codes of conduct that must be adhered to. Im not arguing against freedom; but you obviously do not understand how the government works. Perhaps you should read further down into article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which goes into what the rights of freedom of speech mean and what the limitations are, in this next exert, the word "rights" refers to the right to freedom of speech, and I quote: "exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals"

    Anywho, like I said, im not interested in debate and if you don't wish to follow the "laws of the land" then don't, and see where that gets you.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by mw1 View Post
    The FDA does not investigate claims from Indiv or "competitors tip-offs". They will investigate if there has been documented serious injuries. If they took tips from competitors they would be investigating every single supp company.
    Perhaps, except in this case there is potential for an employee of one business to have inside information on the other...(not merely ingredients lists on products)

  20. Quote Originally Posted by mw1 View Post
    The FDA does not investigate claims from Indiv or "competitors tip-offs". They will investigate if there has been documented serious injuries. If they took tips from competitors they would be investigating every single supp company.
    That statement is simply false. I was there and witnessed it when my buddy did the very thing. About 3 days later an FDA rep was at the front door of the plant we both worked.
    By no means does it strain credulity to suspect this is the result of a competitor getting in the right persons ear.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    Once again, you completly miss the point. There is no freedom of speech in advertising; there are rules and regulations that apply and codes of conduct that must be adhered to. Im not arguing against freedom; but you obviously do not understand how the government works. Perhaps you should read further down into article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which goes into what the rights of freedom of speech mean and what the limitations are, in this next exert, the word "rights" refers to the right to freedom of speech, and I quote: "exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals"

    Anywho, like I said, im not interested in debate and if you don't wish to follow the "laws of the land" then don't, and see where that gets you.
    Sadly you are correct (sadly because there are tremendous limitations to freedom of speech that most do not understand).

    Companies (and businesses in general) need to be very careful with the language they use in advertisements. I do not know the specifics obviously on the case involving PP, however, when it comes to supplement companies that might advertise in a manner that can draw attention due to overarching claims (many do this) then all bets are off.

    Additionally, for the sanctity of the conversation, lets not bring up our "founding fathers", as they were just as flawed as the government officials we have in office today and just as corrupt. The fact that Jefferson was used makes my blood boil. Sorry, rant over
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 89
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 04:28 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-03-2009, 07:30 PM
  3. For Sale: 1-T by Primordial Performance (Muscle Builders)
    By Maxwell600 in forum Supplement Auction
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 09:56 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-27-2008, 02:57 PM
  5. TEA-3 by Primordial Performance
    By fatburner2007 in forum Supplements
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-07-2007, 09:16 PM
Log in
Log in