The FDA issues a warning against the use of SARMs

Page 2 of 6 First 1234 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy1 View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong but the only sarm that MAY be liver toxic is YK-11 due to its structure?

    Sarms are mostly less dangerous than andros except for S23.

    Cardarine is a PPAR that was only shown to have cancer growth in RATS, after having blasted them well over the recommended dosage AND for a few months.

    Aside from lethargy and suppression/shutdown which can be easily comabtted with a test base and proper PCT, is there any real danger from sarms?
    Structure isn't an indicator of liver toxicity. It's about the enzymes ability to break these down. There are lots of non-steroidal things that have liver toxicity. Tylenol for example is very liver toxic and isn't steroidal!
    Nothing I say is medical advice and supplements only enhance and optimize your diet and exercise check with a medical professional before starting any program.
    Try Rise and Swell, the most advanced testosterone booster on the market!
    http://mindandmuscle.net/articles/pr...nd-and-muscle/


  2. Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy1 View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong but the only sarm that MAY be liver toxic is YK-11 due to its structure?

    Sarms are mostly less dangerous than andros except for S23.

    Cardarine is a PPAR that was only shown to have cancer growth in RATS, after having blasted them well over the recommended dosage AND for a few months.

    Aside from lethargy and suppression/shutdown which can be easily comabtted with a test base and proper PCT, is there any real danger from sarms?
    A huge issue is that most companies will not state those types of warnings on the bottle. People dont know they are being shut down, and in a lot of cases won't even think to look because they assume if it is sold as a supplement it should be safe for them to consume. Then people counter that with, "well they should have done research".

    That's not how it works. A supplement shouldn't pose risks like cancer development, eye sight loss, hair loss, shut down etc. Those are heavy side effects for what people usually assume to be safe products.

    On top of that, supplements are generally herbals in a bottle, not experimental drugs with incomplete safety profiles.

    A 16 year old may buy this then end up with a host of issues down the track. They're young and naive. Who reads the 18+ warning anyway? I was playing GTA, drinking and doing things like that well before i was legally allowed.
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels for strength, Focus XT for mental performance & Joint Support XT for pain free mobility
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by USPlabsRep View Post
    so, you work for a snitch...
    You and I both know there's a hell of a lot more to that story beyond what has been publicly speculated.

    --

    But I'm really not sure what that has to do with the stupidity of supplement companies selling these research chems for human consumption?
    SNS Representative - [email protected] .com

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    How so?

    (Most) Drugs have years of drug trials before being sold for human consumption, and then have post release trials so we know most of the risks, down to ones that affect only a small few.

    Then medications must be prescribed by a Doc.

    Where is the relevance to SARMs being sold as supplements?
    I'm not saying SARMs should be sold as supplements. My indictment is moreso on the FDA being a complete sham. They warn you about certain things but when it benefits them or the powers that be monetarily, then they'll approve stuff that kills hundreds of thousands of people.
    OLYMPUS LABS REP - DemiGod

    USE CODE OLYMPUS30 TO SAVE 30% ON ALL OL SUPPLEMENTS

  5. Quote Originally Posted by user567 View Post
    Many have gone through clinical trials. Ostarine has gone through many trials. LGD a few as well. The standard is certainly not whether a drug is approved because the FDA is corrupt as all. Tons of drugs were never approved simply for financial reasons or BS FDA standards. I agree none should have ever been "supplements" and some (GW50156) should not be sold anywhere research or not.
    Going through clinical trials is not the same as passing clinical trials as Eric is meaning it.

    Also, look at the side effect profile of the drugs in those clinical trials.

    Now remember that bodybuilders are taking 10...20...sometimes more...times the doses used in clinical trials.
    SNS Representative - [email protected] .com
    •   
       


  6. 1. I think you should be able to buy take ANYTHING you want, ANYTHING.
    2. Drugs should be freely available any it should be CRYSTAL F'ING clear that this is a drug/synthetic chemical. So freedom but full disclosure is a MUST.
    3. Drugs being sold as supplements hurts the industry and gives them the exact thing they want....an IN to regulation and more control.
    4. In my perfect society the freedom to use ANYTHING, yes crystal, H, crack ANYTHING comes with an equal amount of RESPONSIBILITY. Use all the rock you want but you steal a purse you are looking at MINIMUM 20 years NO PAROLE. No one will do a minute of time for possession but commit any other crime related to your use, think DUI, the hammer falls. This would also ensure that the total amount of years served would be about even so the prison industrial complex still makes their cash(BIG HURDLE FOR LEGALITY OF RECS.)

    So sell them as RC's. They never should have been put in "supplements."

    I have NO love for the FDA but they are absolutely right on this, these are experimental drugs being sold as supplements. Nothing in that release was opinion. Yes they can be hypocritical but right is right and this time, checks to see if pigs are taking flight out window, they got it right.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by TrainerTone View Post
    I'm not saying SARMs should be sold as supplements. My indictment is moreso on the FDA being a complete sham. They warn you about certain things but when it benefits them or the powers that be monetarily, then they'll approve stuff that kills hundreds of thousands of people.
    I see. I agree that the FDA is flawed but this particular decision is sound. And doesn't your company sell SARMs?

    Quote Originally Posted by De__eB View Post
    Going through clinical trials is not the same as passing clinical trials as Eric is meaning it.
    This. Aside from that many of these products out there have less data than Ostarine does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Mar View Post
    There are lots of non-steroidal things that have liver toxicity. Tylenol for example is very liver toxic and isn't steroidal!
    And without any warnings at all like most of these "supplements", people can't make an informed decision regarding risks/rewards or monitor liver enzymes, etc.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by BCseacow83 View Post
    1. I think you should be able to buy take ANYTHING you want, ANYTHING.
    2. Drugs should be freely available any it should be CRYSTAL F'ING clear that this is a drug/synthetic chemical. So freedom but full disclosure is a MUST.
    3. Drugs being sold as supplements hurts the industry and gives them the exact thing they want....an IN to regulation and more control.
    4. In my perfect society the freedom to use ANYTHING, yes crystal, H, crack ANYTHING comes with an equal amount of RESPONSIBILITY. Use all the rock you want but you steal a purse you are looking at MINIMUM 20 years NO PAROLE. No one will do a minute of time for possession but commit any other crime related to your use, think DUI, the hammer falls. This would also ensure that the total amount of years served would be about even so the prison industrial complex still makes their cash(BIG HURDLE FOR LEGALITY OF RECS.)

    So sell them as RC's. They never should have been put in "supplements."

    I have NO love for the FDA but they are absolutely right on this, these are experimental drugs being sold as supplements. Nothing in that release was opinion. Yes they can be hypocritical but right is right and this time, checks to see if pigs are taking flight out window, they got it right.
    I agree with the sentiment that you should be able to use whatever you want, however you want... but mostly because I think this would help speed the process of darwinism taking care of the idiots haha
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Product Rep - db77 @ seriousnutritionsolutions.com

  9. Quote Originally Posted by TrainerTone View Post
    I'm not saying SARMs should be sold as supplements. My indictment is moreso on the FDA being a complete sham. They warn you about certain things but when it benefits them or the powers that be monetarily, then they'll approve stuff that kills hundreds of thousands of people.
    The thing with prescribed medication is that it has gone through all phases of clinical trials - from I right through to III and IV (post release trials) costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and taking, on average, 12 years to get from lab to medicine cabinet.

    That's 12 years worth of trials, testing and countless other things.

    Most of the SARMs people use have not passed phase 2 or 3 trials, none have been authorized for human consumption and long term safety for any has not been established. We know the concerns with Oxycontin because it had been tested prior to its release more than 30 years ago, and are repeatedly testing it as it's lifespan continues. It has a high potential for abuse, which hasn't been helped because of Doctors repeatedly prescribing it, however it also has far more users than what SARMs do, and so any stats need to be calculated as a % of total users, not a total.

    The argument itself is a false analogy as they cannot be compared fairly
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels for strength, Focus XT for mental performance & Joint Support XT for pain free mobility

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    The thing with prescribed medication is that it has gone through all phases of clinical trials - from I right through to III and IV (post release trials) costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and taking, on average, 12 years to get from lab to medicine cabinet.

    That's 12 years worth of trials, testing and countless other things.

    Most of the SARMs people use have not passed phase 2 or 3 trials, none have been authorized for human consumption and long term safety for any has not been established. We know the concerns with Oxycontin because it had been tested prior to its release more than 30 years ago, and are repeatedly testing it as it's lifespan continues. It has a high potential for abuse, which hasn't been helped because of Doctors repeatedly prescribing it, however it also has far more users than what SARMs do, and so any stats need to be calculated as a % of total users, not a total.

    The argument itself is a false analogy as they cannot be compared fairly
    You have your opinion and i have mine. We can just agree to disagree on this matter. The FDA is a business in and of itself. That is all
    OLYMPUS LABS REP - DemiGod

    USE CODE OLYMPUS30 TO SAVE 30% ON ALL OL SUPPLEMENTS

  11. I'm glad we're all on the same page

  12. off topic...but Flomax is a fda approved drug-and that stuff is poison, I recommend not to ever take that crap!!!

    just one example.....
    GOD, FAMILY, COUNTRY!!!

  13. Quote Originally Posted by thebigt View Post
    off topic...but Flomax is a fda approved drug-and that stuff is poison, I recommend not to ever take that crap!!!

    just one example.....
    Oh I'll rant to anyone who asks how the FDA is flawed and approves bad drugs, and doesn't approve good drugs. Everyone else in this thread also acknowledged that. But sometimes, the FDA makes a good decision, and this is one of them. I could give you several other examples of good regulatory action by the FDA if you'd like, for the sake of balance. They do a decent job of in the cautious approval of drugs for children, particularly psychiatric drugs (although unfortunately that can't stop off-label usage). Either way, Flowmax is a terrible analogy for this particular case (I know, you said its off-topic), just as OxyContin is a terrible analogy.

    I'm done now

  14. Quote Originally Posted by TheNietzsche View Post
    Oh I'll rant to anyone who asks how the FDA is flawed and approves bad drugs, and doesn't approve good drugs. Everyone else in this thread also acknowledged that. But sometimes, the FDA makes a good decision, and this is one of them. I could give you several other examples of good regulatory action by the FDA if you'd like, for the sake of balance. They do a decent job of in the cautious approval of drugs for children, particularly psychiatric drugs (although unfortunately that can't stop off-label usage). Either way, Flowmax is a terrible analogy for this particular case (I know, you said its off-topic), just as OxyContin is a terrible analogy.

    I'm done now
    it was just a personal rant....I was prescribed Flomax, but fortunately I'm wise enough to research all drugs before using, and in this case throwing in trash....

    sorry, it was an inappropriate post for this thread...I apologize!!!
    GOD, FAMILY, COUNTRY!!!

  15. No worries man, I just get passionate when talking about drug regulation

  16. FDA decisions aside, I can walk outside my front door in upper class neighborhood, and within 20 minutes have a pocket full of methamphetamines. Why is it easier for me to procure highly illegal drugs than it is to get LGD? Or Clomid? Why does the FDA feel the need to stop me from getting Ostarine? Is this actually about saving people from a dangerous drug, or is this more about the fact that the government hasn't been given it's share.
    Twenty-Two Until None
    I Am My Brothers Keeper

  17. Quote Originally Posted by SFreed View Post
    FDA decisions aside, I can walk outside my front door in upper class neighborhood, and within 20 minutes have a pocket full of methamphetamines. Why is it easier for me to procure highly illegal drugs than it is to get LGD? Or Clomid? Why does the FDA feel the need to stop me from getting Ostarine? Is this actually about saving people from a dangerous drug, or is this more about the fact that the government hasn't been given it's share.
    Because you're friendly local drug dealer doesn't sell LGD? Maybe you can hit him up today and ask him to stock it

    It's more about the fact that it is a drug that hasn't been approved for human consumption, and shouldn't be sold as a supplement.
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels for strength, Focus XT for mental performance & Joint Support XT for pain free mobility

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    The thing with prescribed medication is that it has gone through all phases of clinical trials - from I right through to III and IV (post release trials) costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and taking, on average, 12 years to get from lab to medicine cabinet.

    That's 12 years worth of trials, testing and countless other things.

    Most of the SARMs people use have not passed phase 2 or 3 trials, none have been authorized for human consumption and long term safety for any has not been established. We know the concerns with Oxycontin because it had been tested prior to its release more than 30 years ago, and are repeatedly testing it as it's lifespan continues. It has a high potential for abuse, which hasn't been helped because of Doctors repeatedly prescribing it, however it also has far more users than what SARMs do, and so any stats need to be calculated as a % of total users, not a total.

    The argument itself is a false analogy as they cannot be compared fairly
    I actually agree with most 9f your logic in this thread as your reasoning is pretty dead on. As others have said, I am not against this decision, more against the idea that the FDA is there to protect us...which you get a pass on because you are in Australia.

    But the history of the FDA is basically that it's predecessor was founded to benefit the American meat manufacturers. They were canning rotten beef and sending it to the gov't because we weren't at war and they figured it would never be used, so they could sell what they would normally throw away. Then war broke out in Europe, the meat was sent and more people died from our rotten beef then from the war itself. This, of course, killed one of our largest exports.

    There was nothing to "fix"...the meat companies knew what they did. So they lobbied Roosevelt to pass regulations and form a "watchdog" to renew confidence in our meat industry abroad. It was all a marketing scheme. And it worked. And it grew and remains a marketing scheme to this day.

    As far as oxy - sure, we had decades of data, but Perdue made a huge marketing push to make doctors believe that oxy was not addictive. The FDA looks the other way as long as enough money is being made that they can extract fees through lawsuits and continue their marketing watchdog status.

    And in all those decades of data, there isn't ANY evidence that opiates even have any safety nor efficacy past 12 weeks. None. Yet the FDA never did a thing to ensure prescriptions never lasted past 12 weeks. Making the argument that 12+ weeks of opioid use is safe and effective is so difficult that rather than even attempt to raise such a defense, Pfizer recently settled with the city if Chicago for $2.3B - that's a B - because they can't prove anything past short term acute use.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    Because you're friendly local drug dealer doesn't sell LGD? Maybe you can hit him up today and ask him to stock it

    It's more about the fact that it is a drug that hasn't been approved for human consumption, and shouldn't be sold as a supplement.
    I think you're missing the point that the FDA is more concerned with getting their share of money than actually protecting the citizens. But like I said in my first post on this thread, Thank God the Government is looking out for us.

    I believe I can make the best decisions for myself. I just wish my government would accept that.
    Twenty-Two Until None
    I Am My Brothers Keeper

  20. Quote Originally Posted by SFreed View Post
    FDA decisions aside, I can walk outside my front door in upper class neighborhood, and within 20 minutes have a pocket full of methamphetamines. Why is it easier for me to procure highly illegal drugs than it is to get LGD? Or Clomid? Why does the FDA feel the need to stop me from getting Ostarine? Is this actually about saving people from a dangerous drug, or is this more about the fact that the government hasn't been given it's share.
    Meths way cheaper and easier to make than SARMs
    SNS Representative - [email protected] .com

  21. Quote Originally Posted by De__eB View Post
    Meths way cheaper and easier to make than SARMs
    True story, but also way more dangerous.
    Twenty-Two Until None
    I Am My Brothers Keeper

  22. Quote Originally Posted by SFreed View Post
    True story, but also way more dangerous.
    But also illegal. The DEA is responsible for enforcing drug related matters
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels for strength, Focus XT for mental performance & Joint Support XT for pain free mobility

  23. Well whether we libertarians like it or not, the voices that yell for "freedom of choice!" will always be drowned out by those that cry out "X killed/harmed my son/daughter/etc, WHY ISNT MORE BEING DONE TO REGULATE X!?!"

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Nac View Post
    Well whether we libertarians like it or not, the voices that yell for "freedom of choice!" will always be drowned out by those that cry out "X killed/harmed my son/daughter/etc, WHY ISNT MORE BEING DONE TO REGULATE X!?!"
    You have a choice. You can be safe. Or you cam be free.

    Oh, yeah, and safety is always an illusion.

    Choose wisely.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by HIT4ME View Post
    You have a choice. You can be safe. Or you cam be free.

    Oh, yeah, and safety is always an illusion.

    Choose wisely.
    Where was the FDA when our ancestors had to contend with poisonous berries?

    Hell, we wouldnt be here now if there had been a regulatory body preventing Adam from eating that bloody apple.

    Im with booneman and bseacow. Lets go full tit to the other extreme. Doing so means Ill have to swallow a certain degree of fatalism, where like our ancestors, if any relatives dun goof and harm themselves I have no Big Brother Watchbody to blame or go crying to.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. EPO: FDA Issues New Warnings on Anemia Drugs
    By yeahright in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-09-2007, 11:59 PM
  2. The Use of Dbol as a Supplement
    By XxCrisisxX in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-23-2004, 07:46 PM
  3. ethical implications with the use of AAS?
    By hethcliff in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-31-2004, 10:58 AM
  4. Amount of Order reported to the FDA
    By Arnold_Is_God in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-16-2003, 01:14 AM
  5. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-31-2002, 02:49 AM
Log in
Log in