*** ALERT: Ephedra BANNED in US ***
- 12-30-2003, 09:40 AM
*** ALERT: Ephedra BANNED in US ***
U.S. To Ban Ephedra
WASHINGTON, Dec. 30, 2003
The General Accounting Office reported this summer that many of the complaints came from users under 30. Reported problems included heart attacks, strokes and seizures.
Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler, had taken a dietary supplement containing ephedra, is driven off the field in February. He died shortly thereafter. (Photo: AP)
(CBS/AP) The Bush administration has decided to ban the herbal weight-loss supplement ephedra from the marketplace because of concerns about its effects on health, government officials said Tuesday.
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and Food and Drug Administration chief Mark McClellan were to announce the ban at a midday news conference, the officials said, speaking only on condition of anonymity.
The ban is likely to be met with litigation from manufacturers who dispute the agency's assertion that ephedra, which was blamed in the death of a professional baseball player's death earlier this year, is a health risk.
Congressional investigators have found that many people who followed guidelines for using the herbal stimulant still reported health problems. The General Accounting Office reported this summer that many of the complaints came from users under 30. Reported problems included heart attacks, strokes and seizures.
There are reports of more than 100 deaths being linked to the herb.
The drug's maker, Metabolite, has said it "strongly believes in the science supporting the safety and efficacy of dietary supplements that contain ephedra when used as directed."
Ephedra was thrust into the spotlight in February following the death of Baltimore Orioles minor league pitcher Steve Bechler, who had taken a dietary supplement containing ephedra.
Ephedra is banned by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Football League and the International Olympic Committee but not major league baseball. In May, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed the nation's first statewide ban on ephedra.
Congress in 1994 severely limited federal oversight of dietary supplements.Twitter: @pogue25
- 12-30-2003, 11:15 AM
- 12-30-2003, 12:02 PM
I won't miss it.
Here is some more info the 1fast posted at avant:
In a nut shell, you will have some time to stock up.
Last edited by size; 12-30-2003 at 01:54 PM.
hehe i was just about to post this.. you beat me to it bruh
Can't stop illegal drugs, can't capture Bin Laden's sorry ass, but we can worry about a fat ass pitcher keeling over and some idiot coroner blaming ephedra. In the immortal words of Don King "Only in America".
yeah tell me about it.. they allow cigarettes, they allow caffeine, and they allow chewing tobacco.. am i missing something here?! sheesh
Bitching and moaning on a message board will do nothing.
Instead, write a Congressman if you are a registered voter. These bans are not PARTY affiliated, they are supported widely across the board. Consequently, people need to make noise with letters, emails, and phone calls.
This was set up about andro but is still an easy way to write all your represenitives at once. http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/saveandro.htm
I did it and got letters back from all the people I wrote, including the President.
My state house told me to stop writing them.
I wrote everyday at least twice a day since this all started, they got tired of seeing my name..
so this is pretty much the start of serious crackdowns on stuff we're using huh? wtf.
I was listening to am radio on the way home from work and of course it was all these soundbytes by officials saying how bad it was blah blah blah blah....Then a father is heard saying how is 16(??) yr old son died from using it in conjunction with football......YES, it's sad to hear all that stuff and it's tragic to lose your son like that. But come on, in this country i swear it kills me that nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore. There is always something or someone else to blame other than yourself now and it just drives me nuts.
Owner of Nutrex, Jeff Mc????, was one CNBC this evening. He had a chance to respond to the FDA claims and decision. He did ok and presented his fear as to how far the FDA will continue to go.
Ephedra based products acct. for over 26% of Nutrex sales so he can't be pleased.
I have composed letters to congress numerous times. Other should do the same b/c supplements are going to continue to disappear otherwise.
There has been, 100 deaths related to ephedrine. That is not good. There are how many users? I would guess 10's of millions, sound right? Not a bad ratio. Why then is Alcohol and Tobacco not only readily available, it's glamorized. Every time I see a hot chick on TV, she's holding a Labatt's bottle. Yet there are probably 100's of deaths DAILY related to these two poisons. ****ing Hypocrites!!!!
What I think is going to be the telling tale on our government’s ethics, is when ephedrine will be available by prescription. Yeah, isn't prescriptions and insurance the cornerstone to the American economy? ****ing Hypocrites!!!
I will update my "cost comparison of cuttting supps" thread accordingly within the next month. I figured it might be pointless to compare too many ephedra products considering the looming ban. Unfortunately it has finally come to pass
OMG, did anyone watch CNN this morning? I watched last night and they said that Ephedra had been linked so about 100 deaths. Then this morning they did another special on it and they said that it had been linked to over 155 deaths!!! Where are they getting these numbers and how did 55 more people die over night?
Does this mean that we can ban anything that kills 100 people?
Bellx1 posted this link over at AU
It was written before the FDA announcement yesterday, but discusses the Rand study that they are basing their rule making. Conspiracy theorists will love this quote:
~ToddBut a recent federally funded, dictionary-sized study from the California-based Rand Corporation considered all reports published over the past two decades of ephedra either alone or in combination with caffeine and found the combination caused "about 0.9 kilograms (two pounds) per month of weight loss." That's about twice the rate of the most-prescribed obesity drugs.
That is quite disturbing Todd.....and could be yet another testament as to the influence of prescription drug companies. Could be a stretch, could also be alarmingly close to something
Damn Big Pete anyone ever told you that you look like Mark Kerr from a distance, the UFC fighter. Haven't seen him in awhile, but that is a compliment by the way...Also awesome documentary on him, called Smashing Machine...anyway props on the physique..
Here is a good take on what is happening by Rick Collins over at EF:
There are no bills pending today that would ban all supplements. Does that mean there's nothing to worry about? Well, there may be very good reason to worry if you care about supplements. Let's talk about why.
The dietary supplement industry is nearly a $19 billion business annually, and it's growing. If Big Pharmacy could get control of it, the supplement business could generate revenues much, much higher than that. Think of the prices we pay for prescription drugs. Think of all the bling-bling.
And Big Pharmacy may likely get its way, eventually. Believe it or not, the U.S. laws are out of step with many other nation's vitamin laws. Globally, supplements are generally much more restricted than here in America (in some places tablets are limited in potency to only the RDA). There is a strong movement (called the "Codex Alimentarius", and supported by the FDA) to "harmonize" all supplement laws around the world. Needless to say, it won't be to loosen up the laws abroad, but to crack down on U.S. supplement freedoms. That's the Big Picture, and some of the pending bills are just small steps in that direction.
Look, the pharmaceutical industry has legions of well-paid lobbyists working Capitol Hill to accomplish the goal. Of course, they're not so foolish as to propose an outright ban on supplements. The public wouldn't stand for it, as evidenced by the tremendous popular support for the 1994 law (DSHEA) that protected supplements from FDA overreaching. No, the on supplements must be gradual. The wall of protections must be dismantled one brick at a time.
So you have, for example, something like the bill (S. 722) proposed by Dick Durbin -- a long-time opponent of dietary supplements. It would require reporting of adverse reactions and safety complaints (a reasonable proposal to protect the public). But it would also give the FDA the authority to remove an entire class of supplements from the market if there's even a single serious adverse reaction complaint filed -- even if the complaint is filed by a consumer who has used the product against the instructions of the manufacturer. Then the manufacturer will have to prove the safety of the supplement -- a costly process that would break some companies. Look at the costs associated with proving safety of a drug before it comes to market. That's why we pay the prices we do for Rx drugs. American consumers generally don't want to pay those kinds of prices for vitamins. And I don't blame them.
Anyway, who's kidding whom on the vitamin safety issue? If that's the problem, let's get over-the-counter non-steroidal anti-inflammatants (NSAID's) off the market immediately! Ibuprofin, acetaminophen and the like cause thousands of deaths annually. Arguably, that's a real public health crisis, don't ya think? (Hey, if saving lives were the true priority, wouldn't we have banned tobacco decades ago?)
Durbin's bill would also newly define “anabolic steroid” to make certain products fit the definition based on advertising claims alone, regardless of whether they actually build muscle. This would end the prohormone market as we know it. Two other bills, H.R. 207 and S. 1780, really go after prohormones as well. The attack on prohormones is largely spearheaded by the sports anti-doping lobby, and is less related to safety than to the potential advantage that using them might provide to athletes. After all, the number of deaths attributed to prohormones is ... zero. A bit off from the number attributed to NSAID's, huh?
The ban really sux and some how I think no matter how much we write, e-mail ect....they will still do what they want.
I went ahead and stocked up before all this went down, so I'll be good for a while.
I am really starting to think the same thing.. which is bad because I really thought the government was supposed a Representive Body, a government of the people by the people. Here lately as things are going on, it is seeming more of government for the special interests and most of them seem to be running counter to the will of the people at times...
Craig posted a couple of interesting theories over at AU that sounded like some of the behind the scenes reasoning for the ephedra ban. Basically, it came down to ephedra is being used in the process to make meth, and the DEA was behind the scenes pressuring to get it off the streets.
I'll try to dig up Craig's posts
Craig's first post on the DEA angle to the ephedra ban. Original thread at AU is http://www.anabolicuniverse.com/foru...7770#post37770
Originally posted by craig
there is another reason that is equally, if not more the driving factor behind the gov't wanting to ban ephedra/ephedrine: the fact that ephedrine is the prefered starting material in methamphetamine synthesis. the hydroxy (OH) group is easily reduced using a pretty basic and easy to do reaction--producing methamphetamine.
similarly, the recently banned phenylpropanolamine (PPA--a stimulant, appetite suppressent and anti-histamine) is converted to amphetamine by reducing its hydroxy (OH) group with the same reaction. then the amphetamine can be converted to meth by adding a methyl group if so desired, also using a fairly basic and easy to do reaction.
the dea put pressure on the FDA to ban both of these compounds. there was significant resistance from the pharmaceutical companies when phenylpropanolamine (PPA) was banned--(it was the only FDA approved non-prescription appetite supressant at that time) the companies said that the gov't was inflating the risk (the reason for the ban was that it apparently caused stroke in a few cases, which may or may not have been linked to PPA). there was also a lot of resistance to the ephedra ban by the supplment industries--which actually delayed the ban on ephedra. they were able to keep it on the market for several years after the gov't first started trying to ban it. the fact that it is a traditional chinese medicine probably makes the ban harder to put in place and enforce.
i saw both of these bans coming years ago, when i learned that they could be easily converted to controlled substances. the other compound that is used in meth manufacturing is pseudoephedrine (pseudofed), which is so commonly used in cold & allergy medications that it cannot easily be banned. i would assume that if they find a drug that has similar theraputic properties that could replace pseudofed, that they would try to ban pseudoephedrine as well. currently, you cannot buy more than a couple of packages of it at a time as they try to control the sale of large amounts to prevent it from ending-up in clandestine meth labs.
the fact that ephedrine and PPA are chemical precoursers of illicit stimulants is the primary reason why they are being (or have been) banned, although it is unlikely that this will be mentioned as the reason--instead they try to prove that the compounds are 'unsafe' in some way, giving them the excuse to ban them. many drugs sold on the market in the US are much more dangerous than these compounds--but the gov't doesn't have reason to ban them simply for safety--the key point is their use in clandestine drug manufacture.
See http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/ppa/qa.htm for phenylpropanolamine (PPA) ban info.
I am posting pertainent sections of the chemical control act below:
(full text can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/chemical_control.html)
<start of exerpt>
The CDTA also had an initial impact on the number of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories in the United States. In the first three years after the law was passed, the number of clandestine laboratories seized by the DEA declined by 61 percent. In addition, injuries attributed to illicitly manufactured controlled substances that were reported to the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) declined by almost 60 percent during the same time period.
The provisions of the CDTA regarding bulk ephedrine and pseudoephedrine caused methamphetamine traffickers to look for other sources of the precursors. The traffickers noted that the CDTA contained an exemption for over-the-counter (OTC) products that contained regulated chemicals. They took advantage of this loophole by turning to single entity OTC ephedrine tablets and capsules whose single active ingredient was ephedrine as a source of precursor material for the illicit production of methamphetamine.
Federal legislation was passed in 1993 in response to the methamphetamine traffickers' switch to OTC ephedrine products. The legislation was the Domestic Chemical Diversion and Control Act of 1993 (DCDCA) that became effective on April 16, 1994. The DCDCA eliminated the CDTA terminology of "precursors" and "essential" for chemicals regulated under that act and replaced them with the terms "List I" and "List II" chemicals. The DCDCA also removed the exemption for OTC single entity ephedrine tablets thus closing the loophole left by the CDTA. In addition, it gave the DEA the authority to remove the exemption for any other drugs containing listed chemicals if it was shown that they were being diverted for the illicit production of controlled substances. The DCDCA required that all manufacturers, distributors, importers, and exporters of List I chemicals be registered with the DEA and that bulk manufacturers of List I and List II chemicals report on the total quantity of listed chemicals produced during the year. Record keeping and reporting requirements for transactions in single-entity ephedrine products were also imposed by the DCDCA.
Methamphetamine traffickers quickly reacted to the provisions of the DCDCA by switching to single-entity pseudoephedrine products and combination products of ephedrine. The Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 (MCA) was passed to counter the traffickers' response to the DCDCA. The MCA expanded regulatory controls on all lawfully marketed drug products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, and it increased penalties for the trafficking and manufacturing of methamphetamine and listed chemicals. The MCA also made it unlawful for any person to distribute a "laboratory supply" to a person who uses, or attempts to use, that "laboratory supply" to manufacture a controlled drug or listed chemicals with reckless disregard for the illegal uses to which such "laboratory supply" will be put. The Special Surveillance List was published by the Attorney General and consisted of all listed chemicals, all mixtures, and all OTC products and dietary supplements that contain listed chemicals, 28 other chemicals frequently used in the clandestine production of controlled drugs, or listed chemicals and 4 pieces of laboratory equipment commonly found at clandestine drug laboratories. Individuals who violate the "laboratory supply" provision of the MCA are subject to a maximum civil fine of $25,000. Businesses that violate the provision are subject to a maximum civil fine of $250,000.
Ready access to chemical supplies is critical to drug traffickers. Traffickers continuously look for loopholes in legislation and new methods of clandestine production routes in an effort to continue their illegal activity. The DEA has embraced chemical control as an important tool in reducing the availability of clandestinely produced drugs and is committed to depriving drug traffickers of the chemicals needed to manufacture illicit drugs. Currently, List I and List II of the CSA contain 35 chemicals.
Craig's second post on the DEA angle to the ephedra ban. Original thread at AU is http://www.anabolicuniverse.com/foru...7770#post37770
Originally posted by craig
here's some more:
This site mentions the DEA's interest in banning ephedrine as well:
FDA WARNS AGAINST DRUG PROMOTION OF "HERBAL FEN-PHEN" (including ephedrine) - http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tpfenphn.html
Dietary Supplements Containing Ephedrine Alkaloids; Proposed Rule - http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr97064a.html
Great information, Todd. I heard about that connection before, yet wonder if that is a real reason. If it were, I would have expected it to have received more publicity. Frankly, I think the drug companies and their lobbying arms are still the major factor, with this being a convenient justification for their actions.
what is the final deadline date, does anyone know that yet? when will companies no longer be able to sell it????
I was watching CNN or something last night and i saw it scroll on the bottom saying FDA wants it off the shelves by April.
So long as people are smart about using PH's and don't kill themselves by being stupid, I don't think we have anything to worry about.
I think it said 150 something deaths attributed to ephedra...
i mean i feel bad for the people, but dont take ephedra when your 250 pounds overweight then go sit on your couch..and say..wow this is giving me jitters and heart palpatations..of course it is fat ass
or dont take 15 ephedra pills then go to a rave all night without water...wtf?
anyone know of someone dying from it in "normal" circumstances?
Do you guy's think that after April or when the Ban takes full effect will there be anyway to still get it...Black market,overseas ect......
Nutracueticals, parent company to Solaray to launch lawsuit against FDA for arbitrarily and capriciously banning ephedra.
Hopefully Solaray will have thier **** together. I have faith in these guys.
Found Stacker 2 Original Ephedra
I know it is banned but I found them at http://www.igotbannedforspam.com
Hope this will help the people who have been using the ECA stack and had success with it.
Stacker 2 Original Ephedra not welcomed here?
Made that post for people looking for it. If you are offended by the post, then don't go to that site.
Originally Posted by BodyWizard
not offended by the post, but by the spammer (that's you).
you're brand-new here, you have 5 posts - 4 are spam, one is defending the spam.
we're not crazy about spam OR SPAMMERS here, so I figure you're moments away from being banned...therefore, goodbye.
now: if you WANT to offend me, pretend you're NOT spamming
Similar Forum Threads
- By pittguy578 in forum SupplementsReplies: 8Last Post: 11-20-2010, 02:23 PM
- By pittguy578 in forum SupplementsReplies: 3Last Post: 11-08-2010, 01:19 PM
- By Ziquor in forum General ChatReplies: 12Last Post: 08-11-2008, 08:55 PM
- By motiv8er in forum SupplementsReplies: 9Last Post: 12-30-2003, 09:42 PM
- By msclbldrguy in forum SupplementsReplies: 6Last Post: 03-25-2003, 10:25 AM