The FDA issues a warning against the use of SARMs

Page 3 of 6 First 12345 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Nac View Post
    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.
    100% on board that we need to regulate wild berries.

    More man-made global warming should take care of any wild anything that could pose a threat.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by HIT4ME View Post
    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.
    The FDA isn't above reproach, nor is it infallible. The FDA regulates opioids, but it doesn't prescribe them. If a Doc is prescribing opioids long term, any deleterious effects that occur from negligence should be thrown there way.

    Two papers address this well: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494184/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1853184/

    There are sections within these texts on corrupt physicians, difficulties on regulating prescriptions etc.
    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 Jiigzz View Post
    The FDA isn't above reproach, nor is it infallible. The FDA regulates opioids, but it doesn't prescribe them. If a Doc is prescribing opioids long term, any deleterious effects that occur from negligence should be thrown there way.

    Two papers address this well: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5494184/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1853184/

    There are sections within these texts on corrupt physicians, difficulties on regulating prescriptions etc.
    Those are great papers actually. And the opioid epidemic we face in the US is certainly a team effort. Drug companies marketed the heck out of cheap opioids, the FDA looked the other way, doctors believed sales reps- yes sales reps - without question. I mean, there is plenty of fault in marketing an opioid as being non-addictive, but that fault doesn't mean doctors don't play a role. These doctors are supposed to be experts and to not research or question a sales rep or pharmaceutical company's marketing is a foolish and negligent mistake. Add in hospitals trying to push for higher discharge ratings from patients by forcing doctors to treat pain quickly and insurance company politics - it is a real comedy of errors.

    In my hometown my doctor that I had in high school lost his license I'm 2000 and did jail time. He prescribed 1/3 of all the oxy in the entire state. What he was doing wouldn't even raise a red flag today. It would be normal medicine.

    My grandmother's doctor put my grandmother in the hospital because she put her on oxy, allowed it to escalate, switched her to fentanyl to reduce the oxy and allowed that to escalate until my grandmother became non responsive.

    The doctor would have done nothing to avoid the escalation and I had to step in and argue for months to start using agmatine alongside the opioids. They took forever to listen and then after a couple months on it the nurses told my mom and aunt how they had to bring it up at the next nurses meeting because it was actually working. My mom thought this would make me hapoy, but it struck.me as pretty shameful. I didn't discover anything. DRUGGIES know about this interaction and there are reams of research about it - and the doctors couldn't even be bothered to do some research beyond what a pharma company was telling them. To make it worse, when discussing the drugs my grandmother is on with the doctor and bringing up CYP interaction she thought I was talking about receptor sites (revealing a lack of even extremely basic understanding of her profession).

    But doctors went to medical school...so they know way more than we possibly could.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by HIT4ME View Post
    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.
    Any doctor that believed the chemical oxycodone was going to be NON-addictive when they have even a basic knowledge of hydrocodone was f**king idiot and using the promotional material as a total cop out. If we did completely away with the FDA everyone would bitch about the drug companies being completely unchecked. It would be a matter of time before a "committee" or watchdog group would be formed and in no time we would have FDA V2.0.

    If you think the FDA gives a flying f**k about you taking sarms you funny. They simply are saying stop selling unreleased research drugs as supplements. THIS IS NOT an example of overreach in any way guys. I have hated 90% of what they have done to supplements over the years and I have seen many items taken for no good reason since I started this in 1998, this is NOT one of those times.

  5. 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 refuse to sell SARMs as dietary supps not because I think they're too dangerous for public use (I don't think they are...at all, although I DO think there should be an age restriction of 18+ or possibly even 21+), but because of potential lawsuits from unscrupulous, extortionist industry scum.

    I wish the Gov. would just mind its own business and abandon its draconian, failing ways like many other countries have done with superior results, such as Amsterdam, England, etc. Amsterdam has completely decriminalized all drugs and yet they have a lower rate of abuse/addiction than the U.S.. How many people in the U.S.--often kids--have had their lives completely destroyed because of drug related felony charges? A LOT! Many of these people would have ended up just fine without the government's criminal intervention, yet now they can't even get a job because of a drug they did as a teenager. That's messed up. The whole steroid thing is even worse. Steroid users aren't causing any social problems, nor hindering the country's growth and development, yet even these people are having their lives flushed down the toilet...just because they wanted to be bigger and stronger. What a crime!

    SARMs are even more ridiculous. It won't be long before SARMs are made controlled substances...and then we will start seeing good people racking up felony charges over this stupid bull****.

    Aside from the whole legality aspect of it, the Gov. has NO RIGHT to tell us how to live. Our freedoms are being trampled upon daily...and not only are many ignorant of this, but there are even U.S. citizens who SUPPORT this type of slavery! They actually WANT the Gov. to determine what we can and cannot do with our own bodies. I don't know about you, but I don't want to relinquish my independence and self-sovereignty to another power...and I sure as hell don't want someone else telling me how to live.

    I am all for government funded education. In fact, we need more of it. If the Gov. would spend more time and money on educating the public rather than penalizing them, the problem would largely rectify itself. Most people don't WANT to hurt themselves...or take risks outside of their comfort zone, but it shouldn't be the Gov. that determines what someone else's comfort level is. It should be their job to educate the people and then allow them to make decisions for themselves.

    Now, I do agree that if someone is selling a drug that can have very serious consequences if abused, they should be listed on the label, or a pamphlet included with the product explaining the risks. It's not that the supp companies today don't want to do this, but rather, they are afraid of self-incrimination...because they know the Gov. is one step behind them just waiting to bring them down. If everything was legalized, I bet we would start to see a whole lot more companies supplying detailed information regarding a product's potential risks.

    The people should be the ones who determine the degree to which the supplement industry is regulated...not the government, so if the people who buy these products don't want more regulation/scheduling, it shouldn't be happening. The government is supposed to be for the people, not the people for the government. I only rarely do I encounter someone in this industry who actually WANTS more regulation/scheduling, yet the Gov. doesn't care what the people want. It only cares about itself. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge on the subject knows that all this regulation doesn't have a damn thing to do with "protecting" people, but with Big Pharma wanting to shutdown anyone and anything that threatens its profits...and they are constantly paying off lawmakers to ensure this happens. It has nothing to do with protecting people. It's all about money...which includes the whole"war on drugs" bull****. That experiment failed long ago...and the Gov. knows it, but the reason it continues is because it was NEVER about removing drugs from the streets of America. It was about making money! It has been this way from day one and will continue to be this way into the future. The supp industry is no different. They just want control so they can profit.
    MA Labs (masupps.com)

    Discount Code (20% off): AM20
    •   
       


  6. Definitely showing where the industry is going in the future. The need for the products to become stronger will always breed more unscrupulous and dangerous products. There will always be companies that keep products safe.
    Mind and Muscle Code AM10 WWW.mindandmuscle.com
    Muscle Research Code AM10 www.mrsupps.com

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Mike Arnold View Post
    I refuse to sell SARMs as dietary supps not because I think they're too dangerous for public use (I don't think they are...at all, although I DO think there should be an age restriction of 18+ or possibly even 21+), but because of potential lawsuits from unscrupulous, extortionist industry scum.

    I wish the Gov. would just mind its own business and abandon its draconian, failing ways like many other countries have done with superior results, such as Amsterdam, England, etc. Amsterdam has completely decriminalized all drugs and yet they have a lower rate of abuse/addiction than the U.S.. How many people in the U.S.--often kids--have had their lives completely destroyed because of drug related felony charges? A LOT! Many of these people would have ended up just fine without the government's criminal intervention, yet now they can't even get a job because of a drug they did as a teenager. That's messed up. The whole steroid thing is even worse. Steroid users aren't causing any social problems, nor hindering the country's growth and development, yet even these people are having their lives flushed down the toilet...just because they wanted to be bigger and stronger. What a crime!

    SARMs are even more ridiculous. It won't be long before SARMs are made controlled substances...and then we will start seeing good people racking up felony charges over this stupid bull****.

    Aside from the whole legality aspect of it, the Gov. has NO RIGHT to tell us how to live. Our freedoms are being trampled upon daily...and not only are many ignorant of this, but there are even U.S. citizens who SUPPORT this type of slavery! They actually WANT the Gov. to determine what we can and cannot do with our own bodies. I don't know about you, but I don't want to relinquish my independence and self-sovereignty to another power...and I sure as hell don't want someone else telling me how to live.

    I am all for government funded education. In fact, we need more of it. If the Gov. would spend more time and money on educating the public rather than penalizing them, the problem would largely rectify itself. Most people don't WANT to hurt themselves...or take risks outside of their comfort zone, but it shouldn't be the Gov. that determines what someone else's comfort level is. It should be their job to educate the people and then allow them to make decisions for themselves.

    Now, I do agree that if someone is selling a drug that can have very serious consequences if abused, they should be listed on the label, or a pamphlet included with the product explaining the risks. It's not that the supp companies today don't want to do this, but rather, they are afraid of self-incrimination...because they know the Gov. is one step behind them just waiting to bring them down. If everything was legalized, I bet we would start to see a whole lot more companies supplying detailed information regarding a product's potential risks.

    The people should be the ones who determine the degree to which the supplement industry is regulated...not the government, so if the people who buy these products don't want more regulation/scheduling, it shouldn't be happening. The government is supposed to be for the people, not the people for the government. I only rarely do I encounter someone in this industry who actually WANTS more regulation/scheduling, yet the Gov. doesn't care what the people want. It only cares about itself. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge on the subject knows that all this regulation doesn't have a damn thing to do with "protecting" people, but with Big Pharma wanting to shutdown anyone and anything that threatens its profits...and they are constantly paying off lawmakers to ensure this happens. It has nothing to do with protecting people. It's all about money...which includes the whole"war on drugs" bull****. That experiment failed long ago...and the Gov. knows it, but the reason it continues is because it was NEVER about removing drugs from the streets of America. It was about making money! It has been this way from day one and will continue to be this way into the future. The supp industry is no different. They just want control so they can profit.
    The only thing I would point out here - our gov't already spends more MONEY on education than any other government in the world. Money isn't the problem. WE are the problem.

    Part of the issue with this is, with SARMS for instance, we don't exactly KNOW the potential risks. Most drugs kind of have this situation to some degree, but with all the chemicals out there - you can either force everything to list every possible and unknown risk (which makes warnings useless, since they will be on everything and thus ignored - look at the CA carcinogen warnings) - or you don't label unknowns...either way doesn't educate anyone.

  8. The bottom line is that SARM's are illegal. They were never legal. They never should have been sold.
    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/

  9. No sarm, no foul

  10. Quote Originally Posted by jameschoi View Post
    No sarm, no foul
    lol, well played sir. Well played.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by HIT4ME View Post
    Those are great papers actually. And the opioid epidemic we face in the US is certainly a team effort. Drug companies marketed the heck out of cheap opioids, the FDA looked the other way, doctors believed sales reps- yes sales reps - without question. I mean, there is plenty of fault in marketing an opioid as being non-addictive, but that fault doesn't mean doctors don't play a role. These doctors are supposed to be experts and to not research or question a sales rep or pharmaceutical company's marketing is a foolish and negligent mistake. Add in hospitals trying to push for higher discharge ratings from patients by forcing doctors to treat pain quickly and insurance company politics - it is a real comedy of errors.

    In my hometown my doctor that I had in high school lost his license I'm 2000 and did jail time. He prescribed 1/3 of all the oxy in the entire state. What he was doing wouldn't even raise a red flag today. It would be normal medicine.

    My grandmother's doctor put my grandmother in the hospital because she put her on oxy, allowed it to escalate, switched her to fentanyl to reduce the oxy and allowed that to escalate until my grandmother became non responsive.

    The doctor would have done nothing to avoid the escalation and I had to step in and argue for months to start using agmatine alongside the opioids. They took forever to listen and then after a couple months on it the nurses told my mom and aunt how they had to bring it up at the next nurses meeting because it was actually working. My mom thought this would make me hapoy, but it struck.me as pretty shameful. I didn't discover anything. DRUGGIES know about this interaction and there are reams of research about it - and the doctors couldn't even be bothered to do some research beyond what a pharma company was telling them. To make it worse, when discussing the drugs my grandmother is on with the doctor and bringing up CYP interaction she thought I was talking about receptor sites (revealing a lack of even extremely basic understanding of her profession).

    But doctors went to medical school...so they know way more than we possibly could.
    Good stuff. Iím beginning to realize more and more that credentials donít mean a Doctor is knowledgeable, they mean that he was willing to put forth the work it requires to achieve that career. How many of us can study for and ace a test and then forget everything we learned? Dumb people sometimes have great work ethic and then obtain a license to practice medicine.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by HIT4ME View Post
    The only thing I would point out here - our gov't already spends more MONEY on education than any other government in the world. Money isn't the problem. WE are the problem.

    Part of the issue with this is, with SARMS for instance, we don't exactly KNOW the potential risks. Most drugs kind of have this situation to some degree, but with all the chemicals out there - you can either force everything to list every possible and unknown risk (which makes warnings useless, since they will be on everything and thus ignored - look at the CA carcinogen warnings) - or you don't label unknowns...either way doesn't educate anyone.
    Much of the government funded education on drugs is purposely biased and inaccurate...which is why so many kids end up doing their own research...and often have a difficult time separating the wheat from the chaff. If the Gov. would just be honest (remember the whole "steroids don't increase physical performance" bull**** they pushed down all the school kids throats for decades...LOL) they would actually trust what the Gov. is teaching them. However, they have learned through experience and self-education that much of what they are told is NOT true. So, it doesn't really matter how much money is being spent if it is being wasted.

    I don't think we are the problem at all. We should have the RIGHT to put whatever we want into our own bodies...PERIOD. The Gov. shouldn't have any right to tell us what is best for us...what we should or should not consume, etc. That is called freedom, the opposite of which is called slavery. If someone wants to kill themselves with meth, as stupid as it is, it should be THEIR choice. The Gov. was never supposed to our masters or slave owners.
    MA Labs (masupps.com)

    Discount Code (20% off): AM20

  13. Quote Originally Posted by Eric Mar View Post
    The bottom line is that SARM's are illegal. They were never legal. They never should have been sold.
    That's obvious. The point is that they shouldn't be illegal...and neither should anything else. These things are only illegal because people in the Gov. and Big Pharma benefit financially from it. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with protecting us...and it is this blatant hypocrisy that makes so many people angry. The Gov. will allow Big Pharma to release drugs that KILL people...and cause a multitude of other harmful side effects (many of which are very serious), but if someone wants to use a SARM (which isn't even on the same playing field in terms of risk), they are threatened with criminal action. It's pure bull**** and 100% hypocrisy.
    MA Labs (masupps.com)

    Discount Code (20% off): AM20

  14. Quote Originally Posted by Scott4bama15 View Post
    Good stuff. I’m beginning to realize more and more that credentials don’t mean a Doctor is knowledgeable, they mean that he was willing to put forth the work it requires to achieve that career. How many of us can study for and ace a test and then forget everything we learned? Dumb people sometimes have great work ethic and then obtain a license to practice medicine.
    Maybe.
    There are also a lot of "bros" that think their n=1 experience is much more valid that anything that a person who has spent years actually getting an education can say.

  15. Okay, suppose anyone here themselves spent a bit of time researching and developing a compound (or anything for that matter) that did something.

    Would you be altruistic and just allow the compound or invention to be public domain for everyone to freely use or profit from themselves?

    Lol if you answer "yes" then youre full of sh1t. Cos whats the first question the Dragons in the Den ask of promising entrepreneurs?

    "Is your product patented?"

    Ok, yes, there are 2 senses of "free" here, "free" as in doesnt cost to obtain, and "free" as in not illegal to use. Obviously we can have the latter but not the former (sugar isnt free but we are free to use it).

    But stuff like SARMs are not like sugar, cos sugar isnt a patented compound. People are profiting from the distribution/use of SARMs when the developer should have first option at a monopoly.

    So again, to my original point, if you disagree with this Im calling you out as full of sh1t.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by Mike Arnold View Post
    That's obvious. The point is that they shouldn't be illegal...and neither should anything else. These things are only illegal because people in the Gov. and Big Pharma benefit financially from it. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with protecting us...and it is this blatant hypocrisy that makes so many people angry. The Gov. will allow Big Pharma to release drugs that KILL people...and cause a multitude of other harmful side effects (many of which are very serious), but if someone wants to use a SARM (which isn't even on the same playing field in terms of risk), they are threatened with criminal action. It's pure bull**** and 100% hypocrisy.
    Theres a potential irony in your position.

    Lets run what youre advocating to its logical conclusion.

    In this Libertarian world, sourcing quality raws from overseas is easy-peasy-Japanesey (or Chinesey, most likely).

    In the present legal restrictive climate, sourcing good raws is one of the biggest deterrants to Joe Bloggs who'd like to make his own cheaper version of Somatozine.

    In the ideal Libertarian world, where everything is freely available (and cheaply) how are guys like yourself going to protect their products/investments and secure a decent customer base?

  17. Quote Originally Posted by Mike Arnold View Post
    That's obvious. The point is that they shouldn't be illegal...and neither should anything else. These things are only illegal because people in the Gov. and Big Pharma benefit financially from it. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with protecting us...and it is this blatant hypocrisy that makes so many people angry. The Gov. will allow Big Pharma to release drugs that KILL people...and cause a multitude of other harmful side effects (many of which are very serious), but if someone wants to use a SARM (which isn't even on the same playing field in terms of risk), they are threatened with criminal action. It's pure bull**** and 100% hypocrisy.
    Amen!

    The flu shot is a prime example of that. It has been shown to be no more effective than placebo and it is actually counter productive as it lowers your immune system due to the heavy metal content and other toxins. Not to mention the cumulative neurological risks and the fact that it is proven to substantially increase risk of alzheimer's. That's all fine though because it is a HUGE money maker! The worst part is that I am basically required to get it every year as a healthcare worker. It is absolutely disgusting....

  18. Quote Originally Posted by bosskardo View Post
    That FDA is only slightly interested in safety. Commercial pressure comes first.
    That may be giving them a little too much credit..

  19. Quote Originally Posted by Ricky10 View Post
    Amen!

    The flu shot is a prime example of that. It has been shown to be no more effective than placebo and it is actually counter productive as it lowers your immune system due to the heavy metal content and other toxins. Not to mention the cumulative neurological risks and the fact that it is proven to substantially increase risk of alzheimer's. That's all fine though because it is a HUGE money maker! The worst part is that I am basically required to get it every year as a healthcare worker. It is absolutely disgusting....
    Every time you use the word proven, it makes me cringe. Anyone that uses it in the context of science has no clue what they are talking about and should be ignored.

    Would you be so kind as to share your research on a flu vaccination programme vs. Placebo causing alzeimers and proving heavy metal contamination?
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels for strength, Focus XT for mental performance & Joint Support XT for pain free mobility

  20. Quote Originally Posted by Scott4bama15 View Post
    Dumb people sometimes have great work ethic and then obtain a license to practice medicine.
    Do me a favor and become one of the 3% of people accepted to medical school each year, then complete a residency, then come back here and let's talk about who's "intelligent." Are these broad generalizations useful? Doctors are certainly partly to blame for the opioid crisis, but this hardly the first time that pharmaceutical companies manipulated data, used deceptive marketing tactics, lying to the public as well as to the medical community. Lookup the Janssen scandal from like 1992 through the early 2000s where they were illegally marketing drugs to kids and seniors, while hiding data on side effects.

    Sure - there are plenty of doctors who are conflicted doing conflicted research for pharma, but there are many more who consume and make medical decisions based on that flawed data. And its not always easy to tell the difference in many cases, since drug studies are funded by ... pharma. And no, not every trial every conducted has flawed data.

    The main focus of blame for these increasingly common issues with pharmaceuticals, in my mind, should be pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists. We need better regulations in place to present conflicts of interests in pharmaceutical research, as well as increased funding and regulatory power for the NIH involving these trials, and stricter auditing and monitoring for human trial data. We also need regulations to control the industry -> government revolving door into FDA and USDA in particular.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ricky10 View Post
    The flu shot is a prime example of that. It has been shown to be no more effective than placebo and it is actually counter productive as it lowers your immune system due to the heavy metal content and other toxins.
    Nothing you said is true. Since you are making these claims, please provide credible sources, as I've done here. Its effectiveness isn't always fantastic, I agree, but it is completely incorrect to say it is less effective than a placebo (1, 3). They do a good job in predicting strains about 70% of the time, and in good years the reduction of flu risk can be as high as 60%.

    Thimerosal is a form of ethyl mercury, which is much more rapidly excreted compared with methyl mercury, and is completely harmless to adults in the quantities found in a flu shot.

    And if anything, the flu shot boosts immunity (2, 4).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Arnold View Post
    The point is that they shouldn't be illegal...and neither should anything else. These things are only illegal because people in the Gov. and Big Pharma benefit financially from it. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with protecting us...and it is this blatant hypocrisy that makes so many people angry.
    This is just happens when you take libertarianism to extremes. I'm no fan of big pharma's anti-regulatory practices, and think we need tighter regulations. But we don't fund the NIH well enough for them to do all this research. So who's gonna do it? And has no clinical trial conducted ever yielded a clinically useful medicine? These arguments frankly scare me. More people will die in your hyper-libertarian dystopia.

    - Fred Nietzsche

    References

    1. Govaert, T.M., Thijs, C.T.M.C.N., Masurel, N., Sprenger, M.J.W., Dinant, G.J. and Knottnerus, J.A., 1994. The efficacy of influenza vaccination in elderly individuals: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. JAMA, 272(21), pp.1661-1665.

    2. Pleguezuelos, O., Robinson, S., Stoloff, G.A. and Caparrůs-Wanderley, W., 2012. Synthetic Influenza vaccine (FLU-v) stimulates cell mediated immunity in a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled Phase I trial. Vaccine, 30(31), pp.4655-4660.

    3. Osterholm, M.T., Kelley, N.S., Sommer, A. and Belongia, E.A., 2012. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet infectious diseases, 12(1), pp.36-44.

    4. Cox, R.J., Brokstad, K.A. and Ogra, P.L., 2004. Influenza virus: immunity and vaccination strategies. Comparison of the immune response to inactivated and live, attenuated influenza vaccines. Scandinavian journal of immunology, 59(1), pp.1-15.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by Scott4bama15 View Post
    Good stuff. Iím beginning to realize more and more that credentials donít mean a Doctor is knowledgeable, they mean that he was willing to put forth the work it requires to achieve that career. How many of us can study for and ace a test and then forget everything we learned? Dumb people sometimes have great work ethic and then obtain a license to practice medicine.
    Whut LOL.

    Try get in to medical school and then say that.

    Doctors are infallible just like everyone else, so they make mistakes, may purposely deceive for financial gain or over prescribe because they just want the person to go away, but that doesn't make them dumb.
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels for strength, Focus XT for mental performance & Joint Support XT for pain free mobility

  22. Quote Originally Posted by Ricky10 View Post
    Not to mention the cumulative neurological risks and the fact that it is proven to substantially increase risk of alzheimer's. That's all fine though because it is a HUGE money maker!
    Going around making these blanket claims is irresponsible. There is no data directly linking flu vaccines to Alzheimer's disease. If you're referring to mercury itself and Alzheimer's ... it is a huge leap to take what the data says on this topic and then apply it to the doses of ethyl mercury contained in annual flu shots. There IS limited evidence of increased mercury levels in Alzheimer's, but this isn't from the flu shot.

    Inorganic mercury exposure is most commonly from air and water contamination, and thus soil, as well as industrial/workplace exposures. Every study looking at mercury levels in dementia used assays for methyl (inorganic) mercury, not the ethyl (organic) mercury found in vaccines. Most environmental exposure is from methyl mercury. This effect varies across countries, with some correlation to environmental mercury levels. India or China for example: both countries are well below the USA in terms of flu vaccination rates, have very high rates of dementia, as well as high levels of environmental methyl mercury exposure.

    Also remember that thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines years ago, as the blood brain barrier isn't fully developed in neonates and young children.

    The flu can kill people who are very sick, elderly, immunocompromised, septic, neonates... I find it disgusting that you find it disgusting, to be perfectly frank.

    How environmental mercury exposure works:

    Name:  Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 6.46.59 PM.png
Views: 96
Size:  706.6 KB

  23. Quote Originally Posted by TheNietzsche View Post
    Going around making these blanket claims is irresponsible. There is no data directly linking flu vaccines to Alzheimer's disease. If you're referring to mercury itself and Alzheimer's ... it is a huge leap to take what the data says on this topic and then apply it to the doses of ethyl mercury contained in annual flu shots. There IS limited evidence of increased mercury levels in Alzheimer's, but this isn't from the flu shot.

    Inorganic mercury exposure is most commonly from air and water contamination, and thus soil, as well as industrial/workplace exposures. Every study looking at mercury levels in dementia used assays for methyl (inorganic) mercury, not the ethyl (organic) mercury found in vaccines. Most environmental exposure is from methyl mercury. This effect varies across countries, with some correlation to environmental mercury levels. India or China for example: both countries are well below the USA in terms of flu vaccination rates, have very high rates of dementia, as well as high levels of environmental methyl mercury exposure.

    Also remember that thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines years ago, as the blood brain barrier isn't fully developed in neonates and young children.

    The flu can kill people who are very sick, elderly, immunocompromised, septic, neonates... I find it disgusting that you find it disgusting, to be perfectly frank.

    How environmental mercury exposure works:

    Name:  Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 6.46.59 PM.png
Views: 96
Size:  706.6 KB
    You're pooping on his conspiracy bro
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels for strength, Focus XT for mental performance & Joint Support XT for pain free mobility

  24. It would be impossible for me to post all sources explaining the detriments of flu vaccinations.

    Here are a few though....have a party!

    https://www.drdavidwilliams.com/why-...t-the-flu-shot

    https://www.naturalhealth365.com/flu...mist-1232.html

  25. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    Every time you use the word proven, it makes me cringe. Anyone that uses it in the context of science has no clue what they are talking about and should be ignored.

    Would you be so kind as to share your research on a flu vaccination programme vs. Placebo causing alzeimers and proving heavy metal contamination?
    I think the esteemed Jenny McCarthy has done some very regarded work in this area.
  •   

      
     

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