Versa 1 in PCT

[aasdferic]

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

thoughts?

[kbayne]

Don't see why you couldn't add it to PCT. It is called "Versa"tile.

[Distilled Water]

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

[De__eB]

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'

[halfhuman]

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.

[Distilled Water]

I might add it to my sd pct. still complicating when ima use it.

I'd like to see it! Keep us posted, please.

[jimbuick]

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?

[halfhuman]

I'd like to see it! Keep us posted, please.

Will do sir

[De__eB]

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?

[jimbuick]

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.

[De__eB]

You're like people that stay in abusive relationships, you and Usplabs deserve each other.

[Distilled Water]

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?

[De__eB]

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.

[jimbuick]

[USPlabsRep]

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...

[USPlabsRep]

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...

[USPlabsRep]

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...

[De__eB]

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)

[jimbuick]

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)

[De__eB]

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.