Primordial Performance raided by FDA - AnabolicMinds.com - Page 2

Primordial Performance raided by FDA

Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. Diamond Member
    mr.cooper69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10,491
    Rep Power
    6035017

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    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..
    http://pescience.com/
    http://selectprotein.com/
    The above is my own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PES

  2. Elite Member
    Force of Green's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  193 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,531
    Rep Power
    149921

    Reputation Reputation Reputation

    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.
  3. Advanced Member
    Lhns2's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    695
    Rep Power
    56694

    Reputation Reputation

    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
    •   
       

  4. Senior Member
    NADDANME's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  203 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,199
    Rep Power
    811536

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    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
  5. Diamond Member
    mr.cooper69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10,491
    Rep Power
    6035017

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    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
    http://pescience.com/
    http://selectprotein.com/
    The above is my own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PES
  6. Senior Member
    jamesm11's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,568
    Rep Power
    111314

    Reputation Reputation Reputation

    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
  7. mw1
    Sponsor
    mw1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,753
    Rep Power
    3285646

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    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
    snsgamers.com
  8. Elite Member
    Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,227
    Rep Power
    3430688

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    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.
  9. Elite Member
    Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,227
    Rep Power
    3430688

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    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)
  10. New Member
    wuzrobbd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1
    Rep Power
    71

    Reputation

    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.
  11. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,395
    Rep Power
    956437

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    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
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 89
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 03:28 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-03-2009, 06:30 PM
  3. For Sale: 1-T by Primordial Performance (Muscle Builders)
    By Maxwell600 in forum Supplement Auction
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:56 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-27-2008, 01:57 PM
  5. TEA-3 by Primordial Performance
    By fatburner2007 in forum Supplements
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-07-2007, 08:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in