Versa 1 in PCT

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. Versa 1 in PCT


    as an addition to your SERM + DAA of course...

    thoughts?


  2. Don't see why you couldn't add it to PCT. It is called "Versa"tile.
    PEScience Representative
    http://www.pescience.com/insider
    Instagram: kylebayne23
    •   
       


  3. I have a strong feeling versa-1 will begin to be tagged along in almost everyone PCT....Serm+DAA+Versa-1
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Distilled Water View Post
    I have a strong feeling versa-1 will begin to be tagged along in almost everyone PCT....Serm+DAA+Versa-1
    I have a strong feeling versa-1 will go the way of pink magic and be discontinued shortly before 2014's 'breakthrough innovation'

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Distilled Water View Post
    I have a strong feeling versa-1 will begin to be tagged along in almost everyone PCT....Serm+DAA+Versa-1
    I might add it to my sd pct. still contemplating on when to use it.
    Black Lion Representative
    I'm a Brooklyn boy I may take some gettin' use to
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by halfhuman View Post

    I might add it to my sd pct. still complicating when ima use it.
    I'd like to see it! Keep us posted, please.
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative

  7. Quote Originally Posted by De__eB View Post

    I have a strong feeling versa-1 will go the way of pink magic and be discontinued shortly before 2014's 'breakthrough innovation'
    You've used it?

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Distilled Water View Post

    I'd like to see it! Keep us posted, please.
    Will do sir
    Black Lion Representative
    I'm a Brooklyn boy I may take some gettin' use to

  9. Quote Originally Posted by jimbuick View Post
    You've used it?
    I have not.

    But you do realize there is 0 clinical research on Aegeline in humans whatsoever?

    You also realize that Aegle Marmelos is indicated as a human health risk by the European Food Safety Agency right?

    You further realize that some USPLabs shill account edited in a blurb to wikipedia claiming Aegeline has a history of being used as a supplement, referencing 4 studies that in no way indicate it has a history of being used as a supplement in the US. And deleted the hazards section of the article.

    Also, USPLabs didn't submit an NDI for Aegeline, when Aegeline itself has NOT been sold on its own as a dietary supplement before the DSHEA's passing, as Aegline wasn't even an identified constituent of Aegle Marmelos before the DSHEA, nor has it received GRAS status.

    Am I saying it's dangerous? Who knows, there's no data to show that it's not, and the ESFA thinks it potentially is.

    Am I saying it's ineffective? Not really, high tower pharmacology and Patrick Arnold and No HYPE make a clear argument that it is not.

    Furthermore, the only scientific reference they make that alludes to an anabolic effect references a difference alkylamide substance from a different plant entirely, containing a differently behaving compound, and all claims made specifically to the effectiveness of Aegeline appear to be ghosts from USPLabs 'internal data'.

    But hey, you go on and throw your money away.

    Oh right, and more related to this thread, what possible effect of Aegeline can be claimed that is in any way conducive to a PCT-specific situation?

  10. Quote Originally Posted by De__eB View Post

    I have not.

    But you do realize there is 0 clinical research on Aegeline in humans whatsoever?

    You also realize that Aegle Marmelos is indicated as a human health risk by the European Food Safety Agency right?

    You further realize that some USPLabs shill account edited in a blurb to wikipedia claiming Aegeline has a history of being used as a supplement, referencing 4 studies that in no way indicate it has a history of being used as a supplement in the US. And deleted the hazards section of the article.

    Also, USPLabs didn't submit an NDI for Aegeline, when Aegeline itself has NOT been sold on its own as a dietary supplement before the DSHEA's passing, as Aegline wasn't even an identified constituent of Aegle Marmelos before the DSHEA, nor has it received GRAS status.

    Am I saying it's dangerous? Who knows, there's no data to show that it's not, and the ESFA thinks it potentially is.

    Am I saying it's ineffective? Not really, high tower pharmacology and Patrick Arnold and No HYPE make a clear argument that it is not.

    Furthermore, the only scientific reference they make that alludes to an anabolic effect references a difference alkylamide substance from a different plant entirely, containing a differently behaving compound, and all claims made specifically to the effectiveness of Aegeline appear to be ghosts from USPLabs 'internal data'.

    But hey, you go on and throw your money away.

    Oh right, and more related to this thread, what possible effect of Aegeline can be claimed that is in any way conducive to a PCT-specific situation?
    I didn't say there was clinical research.

    I also don't care if the EFSA doesn't allow it, considering there is nothing to show it's dangerous.

    My point is the logs show it to be effective and you are claiming an effective product will be discontinued when you haven't used it to gauge its effectiveness.

  11. You're like people that stay in abusive relationships, you and Usplabs deserve each other.
    SNS Representative - [email protected] .com

  12. Quote Originally Posted by De__eB View Post

    I have not.

    But you do realize there is 0 clinical research on Aegeline in humans whatsoever?

    You also realize that Aegle Marmelos is indicated as a human health risk by the European Food Safety Agency right?

    You further realize that some USPLabs shill account edited in a blurb to wikipedia claiming Aegeline has a history of being used as a supplement, referencing 4 studies that in no way indicate it has a history of being used as a supplement in the US. And deleted the hazards section of the article.

    Also, USPLabs didn't submit an NDI for Aegeline, when Aegeline itself has NOT been sold on its own as a dietary supplement before the DSHEA's passing, as Aegline wasn't even an identified constituent of Aegle Marmelos before the DSHEA, nor has it received GRAS status.

    Am I saying it's dangerous? Who knows, there's no data to show that it's not, and the ESFA thinks it potentially is.

    Am I saying it's ineffective? Not really, high tower pharmacology and Patrick Arnold and No HYPE make a clear argument that it is not.

    Furthermore, the only scientific reference they make that alludes to an anabolic effect references a difference alkylamide substance from a different plant entirely, containing a differently behaving compound, and all claims made specifically to the effectiveness of Aegeline appear to be ghosts from USPLabs 'internal data'.

    But hey, you go on and throw your money away.

    Oh right, and more related to this thread, what possible effect of Aegeline can be claimed that is in any way conducive to a PCT-specific situation?
    So you're proposing you have zero evidence claiming anything negative, yet spread negativity?

    Conducive to PCT in the fact that maintaining muscle or adding mass and keeping bodyfat accumulation to a minimum is a mail goal, correct?
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative

  13. Zero evidence?

    Took a look at the FDA register and emailed them, its a fact that you didn't submit an NDI for aegeline, after being warned in your jack3d warning letter about your general practices with regards to NDIs on ingredient specific plant extracts. (Not to mention, if this aegeline is synthetic and not an extract, the FDA position is that it is by definition not DSHEA compliant.)

    I say it is my opinion that it will probably be discontinued within a year or two because if you just discontinue a product before the FDA ever gets around to investigating you, you can generally avoid trouble as long as you weren't selling steroids.
    SNS Representative - [email protected] .com

  14. Quote Originally Posted by De__eB View Post
    I have not.

    But you do realize there is 0 clinical research on Aegeline in humans whatsoever?

    You also realize that Aegle Marmelos is indicated as a human health risk by the European Food Safety Agency right?

    You further realize that some USPLabs shill account edited in a blurb to wikipedia claiming Aegeline has a history of being used as a supplement, referencing 4 studies that in no way indicate it has a history of being used as a supplement in the US. And deleted the hazards section of the article.

    Also, USPLabs didn't submit an NDI for Aegeline, when Aegeline itself has NOT been sold on its own as a dietary supplement before the DSHEA's passing, as Aegline wasn't even an identified constituent of Aegle Marmelos before the DSHEA, nor has it received GRAS status.

    Am I saying it's dangerous? Who knows, there's no data to show that it's not, and the ESFA thinks it potentially is.

    Am I saying it's ineffective? Not really, high tower pharmacology and Patrick Arnold and No HYPE make a clear argument that it is not.

    Furthermore, the only scientific reference they make that alludes to an anabolic effect references a difference alkylamide substance from a different plant entirely, containing a differently behaving compound, and all claims made specifically to the effectiveness of Aegeline appear to be ghosts from USPLabs 'internal data'.

    But hey, you go on and throw your money away.

    Oh right, and more related to this thread, what possible effect of Aegeline can be claimed that is in any way conducive to a PCT-specific situation?
    I love you...

    Pat Arnold still thinks Urosolic acid is effective.....He promisd miracles...

  15. Quote Originally Posted by De__eB View Post
    I have not.

    But you do realize there is 0 clinical research on Aegeline in humans whatsoever?

    You also realize that Aegle Marmelos is indicated as a human health risk by the European Food Safety Agency right?

    You further realize that some USPLabs shill account edited in a blurb to wikipedia claiming Aegeline has a history of being used as a supplement, referencing 4 studies that in no way indicate it has a history of being used as a supplement in the US. And deleted the hazards section of the article.

    Also, USPLabs didn't submit an NDI for Aegeline, when Aegeline itself has NOT been sold on its own as a dietary supplement before the DSHEA's passing, as Aegline wasn't even an identified constituent of Aegle Marmelos before the DSHEA, nor has it received GRAS status.

    Am I saying it's dangerous? Who knows, there's no data to show that it's not, and the ESFA thinks it potentially is.

    Am I saying it's ineffective? Not really, high tower pharmacology and Patrick Arnold and No HYPE make a clear argument that it is not.

    Furthermore, the only scientific reference they make that alludes to an anabolic effect references a difference alkylamide substance from a different plant entirely, containing a differently behaving compound, and all claims made specifically to the effectiveness of Aegeline appear to be ghosts from USPLabs 'internal data'.

    But hey, you go on and throw your money away.

    Oh right, and more related to this thread, what possible effect of Aegeline can be claimed that is in any way conducive to a PCT-specific situation?
    Aegeline has been in the food supply prior to 1994 therefore a dietary ingredient.

    Tell both sides of the story not just your side...

  16. Quote Originally Posted by De__eB View Post
    Zero evidence?

    Took a look at the FDA register and emailed them, its a fact that you didn't submit an NDI for aegeline, after being warned in your jack3d warning letter about your general practices with regards to NDIs on ingredient specific plant extracts. (Not to mention, if this aegeline is synthetic and not an extract, the FDA position is that it is by definition not DSHEA compliant.)

    I say it is my opinion that it will probably be discontinued within a year or two because if you just discontinue a product before the FDA ever gets around to investigating you, you can generally avoid trouble as long as you weren't selling steroids.
    You've been sent here by hightower to do his work. Do you kneel and pray to him...

  17. Quote Originally Posted by USPlabsRep View Post
    Aegeline has been in the food supply prior to 1994 therefore a dietary ingredient.

    Tell both sides of the story not just your side...
    Aegeline specifically has been in the food supply?

    Are you suggesting Aegle Marmelo leaf or stem has been in the *US* food supply prior to 1994?
    Or do you have data showing that Aegeline can be found in the fruit itself?

    Further, are you even using a plant exact? If it's synthetic, it's not compliant (per FDAs own guidance)

  18. Quote Originally Posted by De__eB View Post

    Aegeline specifically has been in the food supply?

    Are you suggesting Aegle Marmelo leaf or stem has been in the *US* food supply prior to 1994?
    Or do you have data showing that Aegeline can be found in the fruit itself?

    Further, are you even using a plant exact? If it's synthetic, it's not compliant.
    Lol are you going to try to take down almost EVERY supplement company single-handed for using synthetic ingredients (which many do)

  19. Quote Originally Posted by jimbuick View Post
    Lol are you going to try to take down almost EVERY supplement company single-handed for using synthetic ingredients (which many do)
    Synthetic ingredients are fine, just not novel ones for which no NDI or safety data has been filed.

    Do you think the FDA is just going to stand by while companies keep doing this and not eventually tighten regulations?

    I'm all about new ingredients, but if companies do not comply with existing regulations, we're going to face even more restrictions on rights to buy and consume what we want.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by De__eB View Post
    If it's synthetic, it's not compliant
    According to you synthetic is not fine, you said it right here.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by jimbuick View Post
    According to you synthetic is not fine, you said it right here.
    In reference to this specific ingredient being as it is post-DSHEA....or is your reading comprehension that poor

  22. Quote Originally Posted by De__eB View Post

    In reference to this specific ingredient being as it is post-DSHEA....or is your reading comprehension that poor
    So its only one ingredient being synthetic that is a problem for you, I thought as much.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by De__eB View Post
    In reference to this specific ingredient being as it is post-DSHEA....or is your reading comprehension that poor
    tell the truth at minimum please or read the rules...

    If consumed as food prior to 1994 it qualifies as a dietary ingredient...

  24. No, I actually complain about a lot of companies.

    Much of the industry is in a constant state of non-compliance with letter of FDA law, and that poses a risk to supplement availability to all of us.

    USPLabs just happens to be a company that looks for novel ingredients a lot (which is a good thing, innovation is great!), I just wish they and other companies took it slower, for the long term benefit of the industry, consumer choice, and ultimately their bottom line.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by USPlabsRep View Post
    tell the truth at minimum please or read the rules...

    If consumed as food prior to 1994 it qualifies as a dietary ingredient...
    Was *Aegeline* consumed as food prior to 1994 in the United States?

    Not Bael fruit. Aegeline. Is Aegeline even in the fruit of Bael tree, as that is what is consumed as food and not the leaves/stems?

    If you label your product as containing the compound itself and not a concentrated extract you have to demonstrate that the compound on its own was in the food supply.

    Also, if your Aegeline is synthetically manufactured, it is by definition of FDA regulations not a dietary ingredient.

    It has come to our attention that dimethylamylamine used in products in the dietary supplement marketplace may be produced synthetically. Section 201(ff)(1) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 321(ff)(1)) defines "dietary ingredient" as a vitamin, mineral, amino acid, herb or other botanical, or dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake, or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract or combination of any dietary ingredient from the preceding categories. Synthetically produced dimethylamylamine is not a vitamin, mineral, amino acid, herb or other botanical. To the best of FDAs knowledge, synthetically produced dimethylamylamine is not commonly used as a food or drink; therefore, it is not a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake. Further, synthetically produced dimethylamylamine is not a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract or combination of a dietary ingredient. Therefore, synthetically produced dimethylamylamine is not a dietary ingredient as defined in section 201(ff)(1) of the Act.


    That's in their letter to you over DMAA, if you substitute DMAA for Aegeline, the exact holds true. So if you're going the synthetic route, you're probably treading very dangerous water with the FDA

  26. Mind and Muscle Rep, mindandmuscle.com
    Selling APS, LG, Liquid Labs, Iforce, ALRI, and HI Tech products
    use code: bktee at checkout for a free t-shirt

  27. Just to be clear and so nobody gets the wrong idea.

    I'm not saying "Versa-1 doesn't work" or "Versa-1 is unsafe"

    I'm saying there seems to be an absence of proof that "Versa-1 works" or that "Versa-1 is safe" or even that "Versa-1 is FDA compliant" and that it would be USPLabs obligation to establish those two facts, both to customers and to the FDA, prior to expecting people to spend money on it.

    Whether people want to spend money on it is up to them. I'm just stating my opinion.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by De__eB View Post
    Was *Aegeline* consumed as food prior to 1994 in the United States?

    Not Bael fruit. Aegeline. Is Aegeline even in the fruit of Bael tree, as that is what is consumed as food and not the leaves/stems?

    If you label your product as containing the compound itself and not a concentrated extract you have to demonstrate that the compound on its own was in the food supply.

    Also, if your Aegeline is synthetically manufactured, it is by definition of FDA regulations not a dietary ingredient.



    That's in their letter to you over DMAA, if you substitute DMAA for Aegeline, the exact holds true. So if you're going the synthetic route, you're probably treading very dangerous water with the FDA

    That's new draft GUIDANCE dumbass...Do you know the meaning of "draft"....
    That's new draft GUIDANCE dumbass...Do you know the meaning of "draft"....

    As a supplement consumer and you seem like a bright ****er, you would understand that if the DRAFT guidance was passed the supplement industry is dead.

    Are you in favor of that?

  29. Quote Originally Posted by USPlabsRep View Post

    That's new draft GUIDANCE dumbass...Do you know the meaning of "draft"....


    Name:  ForumRunner_20130124_114606.png
Views: 213
Size:  405.6 KB
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. ECA in PCT?
    By Steerike in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-31-2005, 08:20 PM
  2. liver protection in pct...
    By mrorangy in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-29-2005, 01:30 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-24-2005, 04:10 PM
  4. im one week in pct could i go on the ckd diet
    By bigrich954rr in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-13-2004, 07:16 PM
  5. DNP use in PCT
    By jminis in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-05-2004, 08:39 AM
Log in
Log in