Attention Everybody:congress is threatening to give new powers to the FDA

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Facing jail time is silly, especially doing so based on vague language.

    But don't you think supplement companies should be forced to meet certain requirements, especially with respect to label and marketing claims? If you're going to spend a large amount of money on marketing, then allocate those same funds to support marketing claims.
    Nope. If there is a study to backup their claims, they have every right to market it that way.

    The problem is now playing as a victim. Here is the kicker now, the consumer has every right to do their own research to make informed decisions. Playing the victim only leads to more nanny state.

    With label claims, yes, if it is on the label it needs to be in there, if it isnt on the label, it better not be in there.
    The Historic PES Legend


  2. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Nope. If there is a study to backup their claims, they have every right to market it that way.

    The problem is now playing as a victim. Here is the kicker now, the consumer has every right to do their own research to make informed decisions. Playing the victim only leads to more nanny state.

    With label claims, yes, if it is on the label it needs to be in there, if it isnt on the label, it better not be in there.
    The onus shouldn't be on the consumer to disprove marketing claims, it should be on the company, especially since it's consumer dollars that grow the business.

    Anyone can cite a study conducted in 1948, without knowing what the variables were and how that dictated the outcome of the study, those studies aren't substantive. If you're asking me to spend money on your product, then support your claims, if your claims turn out to be false then you shouldn't be allowed to operate a lemonade stand. You and I both know that those "studies" and I use that term loosely, aren't conclusive one way or the other, with respect to proving or disproving marketing claims. There was a study cited that said the effects of CEE were greater than that of c-monohydrate, which it turns out was not the case. The relationship between consumer and business is based on reciprocity not misleading the consumer, based on one study conducted in 1938 in a village in Indonesia by a witch doctor. This issue shouldn't be politicized, if supplements can't regulate themselves effectively (venom,jungle warfare, meridian etc), then they need to be put out of business. That's why only I support a handful of companies like MAN or Driven Sports, they earn my business by doing things the right way. Anyway just my two cents, I don't feel the need to turn this into a political campaign ad.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    The onus shouldn't be on the consumer to disprove marketing claims, it should be on the company, especially since it's consumer dollars that grow the business.

    Anyone can cite a study conducted in 1948, without knowing what the variables were and how that dictated the outcome of the study, those studies aren't substantive. If you're asking me to spend money on your product, then support your claims, if your claims turn out to be false then you shouldn't be allowed to operate a lemonade stand. You and I both know that those "studies" and I use that term loosely, aren't conclusive one way or the other, with respect to proving or disproving marketing claims. There was a study cited that said the effects of CEE were greater than that of c-monohydrate, which it turns out was not the case. The relationship between consumer and business is based on reciprocity not misleading the consumer, based on one study conducted in 1938 in a village in Indonesia by a witch doctor.
    Again, a company makes a claim, and the consumer can choose to accept the claim or move on. You already answered your own question, if you choose not to accept, move on with your money, there is no big secret here.

    My question, why would a study done at a university published and peer reviewed be less worthy than a study done by a supplement company with a budget less than 1/1000 of the university?

    The whole victim card is why people are accepting the nanny state we are moving into. To many people cry, oh, I spilled hot coffee on my lap while on the phone and driving... the marketing claims didnt say the coffee was hot.

    For ****s sake people.
    The Historic PES Legend

  4. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Again, a company makes a claim, and the consumer can choose to accept the claim or move on. You already answered your own question, if you choose not to accept, move on with your money, there is no big secret here.

    My question, why would a study done at a university published and peer reviewed be less worthy than a study done by a supplement company with a budget less than 1/1000 of the university?

    The whole victim card is why people are accepting the nanny state we are moving into. To many people cry, oh, I spilled hot coffee on my lap while on the phone and driving... the marketing claims didnt say the coffee was hot.

    For ****s sake people.
    Look not every issue needs to be turned into a political statement. I get it Ron Paul is Yoda.

    You're correct it's the consumer's choice that ultimately dictates the future success of a business, by way of the almighty dollar. I just think that in an industry where you think you're taking a fat-burner, to help bring you closer to leading a healthier lifestyle, then come to find out it contains meridian,steroids, or protein powder content is way less than what is stated on the label, something needs to be done to put those companies out of business.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Look not every issue needs to be turned into a political statement. I get it Ron Paul is Yoda.

    You're correct it's the consumer's choice that ultimately dictates the future success of a business, by way of the almighty dollar. I just think that in an industry where you think you're taking a fat-burner, to help bring you closer to leading a healthier lifestyle, then come to find out it contains meridian,steroids, or protein powder content is way less than what is stated on the label, something needs to be done to put those companies out of business.
    I said label claims must be met. Albeit handing more power to the FDA is a bit scary.

    You went on with marketing and advertising. Two separate issues here. Laws are already in place about label claims. Ask Palo Alto Labs about the tainted Aspire with Sildinifinil analog, or ALRI about the meridia tainted Venom. The government can already punish those for that reason.
    The Historic PES Legend
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    I said label claims must be met. Albeit handing more power to the FDA is a bit scary.

    You went on with marketing and advertising. Two separate issues here. Laws are already in place about label claims. Ask Palo Alto Labs about the tainted Aspire with Sildinifinil analog, or ALRI about the meridia tainted Venom. The government can already punish those for that reason.
    Understood with respect to both Palo Alto and ALRI, however, my contention is that marketing claims should have a similar threshold, not based on one study conducted by the smoking baby kid in a small village in Indonesia.

    I'm against FDA oversight of the supplement industry on principal, but I despise even more so companies run by individuals with no background in science, making wild claims, substantiated by one study that was conducted back in 1918. That's why I put my trust in individuals like Matt Cahill/ PA both of whom share an educational background that lends itself to credibility.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Understood with respect to both Palo Alto and ALRI, however, my contention is that marketing claims should have a similar threshold, not based on one study conducted by the smoking baby kid in a small village in Indonesia.
    Again, why does in house testing hold more weight than a peer reviewed study, accepted by the research community?

    A company can make a claim based on their research and provide references.
    The Historic PES Legend

  8. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Understood with respect to both Palo Alto and ALRI, however, my contention is that marketing claims should have a similar threshold, not based on one study conducted by the smoking baby kid in a small village in Indonesia.

    I'm against FDA oversight of the supplement industry on principal, but I despise even more so companies run by individuals with no background in science, making wild claims, substantiated by one study that was conducted back in 1918. That's why I put my trust in individuals like Matt Cahill/ PA both of whom share an educational background that lends itself to credibility.
    Holy crap, how many times are you going to edit your posts? It gets hard to keep up when I see 4 edits.

    That is the beauty of free enterprise my friend. One study back from the dawn of time is good enough to explore further. If the products do not work, or do no do as intended, then the company will be phased out by free enterprise. You do remember when Matt put out Divinil correct? Based on one study in Japanese from some "Back house" researcher right? And proof is in when people started dosing Activate and showing it was gold. That research proved to be substantial... or how about Epi? That was some Japanese study again.

    But you can keep acting like research means nothing.
    The Historic PES Legend

  9. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Again, why does in house testing hold more weight than a peer reviewed study, accepted by the research community?

    A company can make a claim based on their research and provide references.
    Because if that's the case....anyone can do it, doesn't mean those "studies" are valid, based on certain variables.

    An impartial study should be conducted by a third party, with no financial interest in the outcome, that lends itself to credibility. In-house studies are hardly impartial.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Because if that's the case....anyone can do it, doesn't mean those "studies" are valid, based on certain variables.

    An impartial study should be conducted by a third party, with no financial interest in the outcome, that lends itself to credibility. In-house studies are hardly impartial.
    Then my friend.. you can throw out your DS bottles, your RPN bottles, and about any other bottle of supplements beyond MuscleTech. Funding a third party study is not cheap, and no venture capitalist would back someone to upstart a company like that.

    You cannot have it both ways. You can get cheap, effective product based on research done in the medical community, or you can buy MuscleTech with the budget to run their own studies, then overpay even more because of their new overhead.
    The Historic PES Legend

  11. Oh, and lets not forget when a company funds research, it tends to turn out a certain way.
    The Historic PES Legend

  12. Got this to my email the other day... some bs!!!

  13. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Holy crap, how many times are you going to edit your posts? It gets hard to keep up when I see 4 edits.

    That is the beauty of free enterprise my friend. One study back from the dawn of time is good enough to explore further. If the products do not work, or do no do as intended, then the company will be phased out by free enterprise. You do remember when Matt put out Divinil correct? Based on one study in Japanese from some "Back house" researcher right? And proof is in when people started dosing Activate and showing it was gold. That research proved to be substantial... or how about Epi? That was some Japanese study again.

    But you can keep acting like research means nothing.
    I always edit after the fact, by habit. Never to change my pov, only to make sure I'm conveying it in a way that is tangible.

    Again Matt took those studies and went further by revealing blood test results (Divanil) that supported his claims. He went the extra step and in doing so it earned him respect throughout the industry, same thing with Patrick Arnold, they don't just cite abstract studies, by way virtue of their chemistry backgrounds they clearly understand "science", and take those studies further by producing effective products. Some supplement companies are headed up by individuals with no background in science/chemistry, who simply put out products based on obscure studies that aren't conclusive.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Then my friend.. you can throw out your DS bottles, your RPN bottles, and about any other bottle of supplements beyond MuscleTech. Funding a third party study is not cheap, and no venture capitalist would back someone to upstart a company like that.

    You cannot have it both ways. You can get cheap, effective product based on research done in the medical community, or you can buy MuscleTech with the budget to run their own studies, then overpay even more because of their new overhead.
    Assuming of course that those products are effective. In any event I already stated I'm against FDA oversight. I'm also against marketing pseudo-science.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    I always edit after the fact, by habit. Never to change my pov, only to make sure I'm conveying it in a way that is tangible.

    Again Matt took those studies and went further by revealing blood test results (Divanil) that supported his claims. He went the extra step and in doing so it earned him respect throughout the industry, same thing with Patrick Arnold, they don't just cite abstract studies, by way of there chemistry backgrounds they understand "science". Some supplement companies are headed up by individuals with no background in science/chemistry, who simply put out products based on obscure studies that aren't conclusive.
    Ah, i think I get it now, you weren't around for the start-up of DS. You realize it did not start the way you think it has. And lets not forget, your idea here is not third party testing in a supposed controlled environment.

    So medical studies are not good because there could be other variables, but in house testing of someone who isn't controlled is?

    And let this not get confusing... I love DS and their products, it is not meant any ill will toward them, but your argument is full of holes here. Matt is a brilliant guy and will continue success.
    The Historic PES Legend

  16. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Robboe I agree, however, Johnson and Johnson has a certain threshold that must be met, prior to releasing products for general consumption. Supplement companies do not. As an example your claims regarding Triazole and AX are supported by blood tests, and comes as close to scientific validation as possible. You know many supplement companies, especially smaller ones, simply use abstract studies conducted over 30 years ago, extrapolate those studies and then apply them to the general public, now knowing whether or not the science behind their products actually pair up with their marketing claims. I think supplement companies should have to meet a certain threshold with respect to their marketing claims. If a company claims that my test levels will jump 200% in two weeks, prove it or be gone, this will ultimately benefit those companies that are doings the right way.
    I totally agree, they HAVE to be held to a high standard. But given ALL of their stringent quality control and quality assurances, how did contaminated product even make it out of the factory? A certain threshold has to be met prior to release - they didn't, but the product was released anyway. No threats of jail time from the FDA.

    In addition, something i learned just this week is that there is a silent recall of Motrin occuring. J&J are referring to it as a "soft market withdrawal" even though the FDA wanted it to be a "national recall". The reason for this is that the FDA can't actually enforce recalls, they can only suggest them. Great "administration".

    http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/j-...all/2010-09-23
    The Driven Blog
    Follow DS on Facebook and Twitter!

    Craze™ is NOW AVAILABLE!

  17. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Ah, i think I get it now, you weren't around for the start-up of DS. You realize it did not start the way you think it has. And lets not forget, your idea here is not third party testing in a supposed controlled environment.

    So medical studies are not good because there could be other variables, but in house testing of someone who isn't controlled is?

    And let this not get confusing... I love DS and their products, it is not meant any ill will toward them, but your argument is full of holes here. Matt is a brilliant guy and will continue success.
    Driven Sports was formerly known as Designer Supplements or am I off here?

    I'm not stating that I trust a "brand", that's a stretch. Let me be clear, I trust the individuals behind the brand, especially people with chemistry backgrounds like Cahill and Patrick Arnold. In essence, when they speak on a given topic I know they have the goods to support their contentions. I'd be less inclined to listen to someone who has no background in chemistry and/or science. Again if a company makes a claim that states your test levels will jump up 200%, then validate those claims, in turn you'll earn consumer trust along with my business, which is a healthier long term business strategy.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Robboe View Post
    I totally agree, they HAVE to be held to a high standard. But given ALL of their stringent quality control and quality assurances, how did contaminated product even make it out of the factory? A certain threshold has to be met prior to release - they didn't, but the product was released anyway. No threats of jail time from the FDA.

    In addition, something i learned just this week is that there is a silent recall of Motrin occuring. J&J are referring to it as a "soft market withdrawal" even though the FDA wanted it to be a "national recall". The reason for this is that the FDA can't actually enforce recalls, they can only suggest them. Great "administration".

    http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/j-...all/2010-09-23
    Agreed.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Driven Sports was formerly known as Designer Supplements or am I off here?
    When Designer went out of business the product designs and names were sold to Driven Sports, along with some of the staff.
    The Driven Blog
    Follow DS on Facebook and Twitter!

    Craze™ is NOW AVAILABLE!

  20. Quote Originally Posted by Robboe View Post
    When Designer went out of business the product designs and names were sold to Driven Sports, along with some of the staff.
    That's exactly how I understood it.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Driven Sports was formerly known as Designer Supplements or am I off here?

    I'm not stating that I trust a "brand", that's a stretch. Let me be clear, I trust the individuals, and with respect to people who chemistry backgrounds like Cahill and Patrick Arnold, I know that they know what they are talking about. I'd be less inclined to listen to someone who has no background in chemistry and/or science. Again if a company makes a claim that states your test levels will jump up 200%, then validate those claims, in turn you'll earn consumer trust and offers a healthier long term outlook for your business.
    Yes, it was designer, but they too started small, just like many of the companies you are somewhat lambasting right now.

    But to each their own. Most of the companies, at least around here, back up their product. And medical journals and studies ARE validating.

    The consumer voice is the most validating there is. For example, i have blood work from Erase for our own beta testing, but if you ask most people, they don't care about what the company provides, we have a dog in the battle. Now when BigT or some of the other consumers post their own blood work on their own accord, it actually holds water.

    Being part of such a shady industry, some people just assume we would doctor the blood scans, so let the product do the talking.
    The Historic PES Legend

  22. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Yes, it was designer, but they too started small, just like many of the companies you are somewhat lambasting right now.

    But to each their own. Most of the companies, at least around here, back up their product. And medical journals and studies ARE validating.

    The consumer voice is the most validating there is. For example, i have blood work from Erase for our own beta testing, but if you ask most people, they don't care about what the company provides, we have a dog in the battle. Now when BigT or some of the other consumers post their own blood work on their own accord, it actually holds water.

    Being part of such a shady industry, some people just assume we would doctor the blood scans, so let the product do the talking.
    Do you purposefully misconstrue comments?

    I'm not lambasting small companies, in fact I've purchased supplements from some of the smaller companies. I'm not targeting the little guy. ALL supplement companies should have to meet the same threshold, from Gaspari all the way down to the smoking baby in Indonesia, with respect to validating marketing claims, you seem to think one abstract study is good enough. As a consumer I don't.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Do you purposefully misconstrue comments?

    I'm not lambasting small companies, in fact I've purchased supplements from some of the smaller companies. I'm not targeting the little guy. ALL supplement companies should have to meet the same threshold, from Gaspari all the way down to the smoking baby in Indonesia, with respect to validating marketing claims, you seem to think one abstract study is good enough. As a consumer I don't.
    You are intentionally trying to sidestep the conversations.

    Small companies cannot fund the third party studies you have so willfully binded yourself to, well then went on to in house studies, then moved to aligning with certain names.

    You forget that abstracts are just portions of full studies.
    The Historic PES Legend

  24. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Yes, it was designer, but they too started small, just like many of the companies you are somewhat lambasting right now.

    But to each their own. Most of the companies, at least around here, back up their product. And medical journals and studies ARE validating.

    The consumer voice is the most validating there is. For example, i have blood work from Erase for our own beta testing, but if you ask most people, they don't care about what the company provides, we have a dog in the battle. Now when BigT or some of the other consumers post their own blood work on their own accord, it actually holds water.

    Being part of such a shady industry, some people just assume we would doctor the blood scans, so let the product do the talking.
    So the initial studies purporting that CEE was more effective in terms of rate of absorption, as opposed to the Monohydrate form, was later disproved in controlled third party studies, where there was no financial interest in the outcome(s), as a consumer which one would you be more inclined to believe?

    Again, I'm not against smaller companies. I'm against misleading the consumer, certain protections need to be put in place to keep those things from happening. I'm sure you can agree in this industry, skepticism is more than fair on the consumer's part? All we're asking for, is to invest in companies that work towards helping us achieve fitness goals, in return you get our business. And on a side note I've heard only positive things about Erase.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by danielmaco View Post
    The fda is actually looking out for our best interests.



    The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

    Ronald Reagan

  26. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    So the initial studies purporting that CEE was more effective in terms of rate of absorption, as opposed to the Monohydrate form, was later disproved in controlled third party studies, where there was no financial interest in the outcome(s), as a consumer which one would you be more inclined to believe?

    Again, I'm not against smaller companies. I'm against misleading the consumer, certain protections need to be put in place to keep those things from happening. I'm sure you can agree in this industry, skepticism is more than fair on the consumer's part? All we're asking for, is to invest in companies that work towards helping us achieve fitness goals, in return you get our business. And on a side note I've heard only positive things about Erase.
    No protections shouldn't be provided for marketing. There are already false advertising protections, beyond that, it is on the consumer.

    And I do agree that alot of money should go into researching something you do put out, so that isn't something we disagree on. My point is that it shouldn't be required. If a company does their foot work and provided studies and supporting data, then that should be enough in my eyes, the consumer has enough information to make and informed decision on to support a company and their endeavors. The good ol speak with your wallet.

    As for CEE... there is something that the industry phased out, just like it should have. There is even a recent study showing it increase concentration levels pretty significantly, but it isn't working out real world. No matter how much studying a company did, they couldn't predict real world results. Many people claim they did get good results, many people did not. Me, I never touched it because mono had the most research, I kept myself informed.
    The Historic PES Legend

  27. Quote Originally Posted by Conagher View Post
    Agreed.We are on the brink of losing all of our freedoms.
    bump
    "I don't want anything. I don't want anybody. That's the worst part. When the want goes, that's bad."
    (Doug Stanhope as Eddie on Louie)

  28. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Nope. If there is a study to backup their claims, they have every right to market it that way.

    The problem is now playing as a victim. Here is the kicker now, the consumer has every right to do their own research to make informed decisions. Playing the victim only leads to more nanny state.

    With label claims, yes, if it is on the label it needs to be in there, if it isnt on the label, it better not be in there.
    Going to cherry pick here but the victim mentality seems to be a strong factor in more government regulation.
    From obesity to finances, there are people who choose to make uniformed or informed bad decisions and then want to lay the responsibility on someone else.

    Not saying that there are not plenty of situations where the provider was actually at fault, but all the blame cannot be laid on them.

    I know people getting treated for health conditions who still have the same habits which contribute.
    "I don't want anything. I don't want anybody. That's the worst part. When the want goes, that's bad."
    (Doug Stanhope as Eddie on Louie)

  29. You'd have to consider who the victims are, a lot of them young kids. They aren't going to take the time to analyze abstract studies, in order to make an informed decision. They are going to walk into a store and look at a label and say "wow 4000% more anabolic. I'm gonna look like Jay Cutler in 48 hours!", then next thing you know they are a couple hundred dollars in the hole. I remember being young and taking nitro-tech thinking I was going to look like Ronnie Coleman, when it was all said and done, I was a couple hundred dollars out of pocket and looked more like Gary Coleman.

  30. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    You'd have to consider who the victims are, a lot of them young kids. They aren't going to take the time to analyze abstract studies, in order to make an informed decision. They are going to walk into a store and look at a label and say "wow 4000% more anabolic. I'm gonna look like Jay Cutler in 48 hours!", then next thing you know they are a couple hundred dollars in the hole. I remember being young and taking nitro-tech thinking I was going to look like Ronnie Coleman, when it was all said and done, I was a couple hundred dollars out of pocket and looked more like Gary Coleman.
    And? You learned your lesson didn't you?

    Your whole idea is the idea of fixing stupid. It is just not possible.
    The Historic PES Legend
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. ex threatening to tell authorities
    By ozarkaBRAND in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 03-04-2009, 12:34 PM
  2. Congress wants to give more funding to FDA
    By The Colonel 333 in forum Politics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-13-2006, 04:55 PM
  3. Where to find bulk powers??
    By TheManGuy in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-30-2004, 07:50 AM
  4. The Powers of Tren
    By The Answer in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-28-2003, 07:15 PM
Log in
Log in