Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

why cant they clone serms?

bill86

bill86

Active member
in another post i was talking about how i dont want to run the risk of ordering research chemicals because im in a position right now where i REALLY wouldnt want to get caught (just started law school), no matter how small the risk... it got me thinking... all these companies seem to get around bans by just reformulating and remarketing the same pro hormones over and over. why cant a company do the same to create a 'legal' serm and market it as their pct?

i assume if it were possible it would have already been done... otherwise, reps, tell your bosses, and cut me in
 
SERMs are prescription drugs. The PHs that are OTC currently have no legislation behind them.
 
right, but couldnt the supplement companies just make a minor change to the formula of the serm (keeping the same active ingredient, but changing/adding an inactive one so that it would still work the same) so that it would now be a new formula, thus there wouldn't be legislation on it so it could be sold otc? kind of like when a ph gets banned, and one little thing is in the formula is changed so that it still works the same, but is no longer banned because its a 'different formula'?
 
bill86 said:
right, but couldnt the supplement companies just make a minor change to the formula of the serm (keeping the same active ingredient, but changing/adding an inactive one so that it would still work the same) so that it would now be a new formula, thus there wouldn't be legislation on it so it could be sold otc? kind of like when a ph gets banned, and one little thing is in the formula is changed so that it still works the same, but is no longer banned because its a 'different formula'?
Click to expand...
You want them to risk there ass by potentially violating a patent? Most supplement companies don't have a chemist employed and changing one molecule could alter the action of the chemical in unforeseen ways.
 
It's not a patent thing. in order for it to be over the counter a supp must be derived from a natural substance existing in nature. SERMs are purely made up synthetic, and therefore regulated.
 
rodja - isnt that what they do when they change the formula for ph's to get around bans and re-release ph's?

bound - i thought ph's were purely synthetic also
 
i assumed most all supplement companies (at least the ones that make ph's) have a chemist to design the products. like PP for example, i assumed a chemist came up with the formula for products such as andromass
 
phs are derived from natural chems, but are sorta grey area, there's just a ton of loopholes in steroid regulation. Phera for instance is found in elephant piss, if i remember correctly.
 
ohhh, i understand now... i always assumed ph's and serm's were one in the same with regard to being synthetic. i always wondered why the loop holes we see for ph's didnt carry over into serms.
 
bound said:
phs are derived from natural chems, but are sorta grey area, there's just a ton of loopholes in steroid regulation. Phera for instance is found in elephant piss, if i remember correctly.
Click to expand...
natural chemical? not a lot about mdrol seems natural. if a naturally occurring compound is altered by someone in any way is it still a natural chemical? did 2a,17a di methyl etiocholan 3-one, 17b-ol ever exist in anything close to this naturally? not trying to hijack the thread, just curious
 
geting out of my territory now....I'll give pubmed a search.
 
Copied from old BB.com post back when the letters went out. maybe sd IS synthetic. HUH.


The difference is that because it is not specifically named as a scheduled substance, it is very difficult to actually charge retailers or people who possess the product with any specific crime. Not that it's not possible, but it's extremely unlikely that retailers or people who possess Superdrol would ever be charged with a crime if the substance is not ever specifically added to the list of scheduled substances.

Keep in mind that the act is broadly written, and regardless of whether the product is specifically named or not, it is still technically illegal under the Controlled Substances Act if it's a salt, ester, or ether of any of the currently listed substances, or if it's "chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, corticosteroids, and dehydroepiandrosterone)". Now, if they had released Superdrol as a research chemical, and had never marketed it for human consumption, then the law would not be nearly as clear. A substance that technically meets the definition of illegal under the Controlled Substances Act , but is not ever marketed or sold as a supplement that is meant for human or animal administration can probably squeek by with a bit of legal footing behind it.
(21 CFR 1308.23)

But in it's current form, it's illegal no matter how you look at it. It simply does not meet the legal requirements necessary to sell something as an over the counter supplement (It's a synthetic hormone), so it was technically never legal to sell regardless of it's schedule status.

That doesn't mean I would be concerned if I bought a bottle or two, because the chances of a consumer ever suffering any sort of legal repercussions for buying or possessing Superdrol now or in the future are extremely small. Worst case scenario would most likely be that at some point in the future it is specifically added to the list of substance classified as Schedule III anabolic steroids, at which time it would carry the same risk as possessing pro-hormones or other steroids does now. They would almost certainly not track down people who had bought it in the past, but being caught in possession of it at that time would probably result in criminal charges.

If it's never added to the list, then the chances of anyone other than Anabolic Resources ever facing any penalties are most likely miniscule.

Cna' find much on PUbmed except for liver toxicity studies.
 
interesting, but now im even more confused, haha. i was under the impression that most all ph's (including SD) are synthetic, as are serms. but it seems that every time a ban comes around and a specific formula is banned, the company just goes and alters the formula a little so that its still basically the same product, but the formula is changed just enough to get around the ban (thats why people refer to 'the original ____')... so, after reading that, and by my initial thinking, im still lost as to why the formula for a serm cant be altered in the same way ph's are altered so that it gives the same result, but isn't covered by whatever current ban is in place.


maybe im completely wrong as to companies changing the formula of ph's to get around bans, but i could have sworn ive heard (although, as i said before, ive never actually taken ph's, so my knowledge is limited) of companies having to re-do a certain ph (lets take epistane for example) and rerelease it to get around the ban... it still acts as epistane, but is just slightly different on the molecular level.
 
it would make a lot more sense if all ph's were DERIVED from a natural source, whereas serms werent, like you said before
 
im sure if a sup company wanted to take the time to research what various analogs of serms are out there they could.

but when a pharma company does research for this, they usually file a patenet for all the compounds they think will work, and ultimately choose one.
they do this in order to prevent competition.
there really isn't a us market for pharmacuetical steroids, as only a few are approved to be used in medicine, so most pharma companies aren't concerned with it.

serms are used for other purposes, and wern't intended to be used by men for pct from a steroid cycle.

sure, you could make a designer serm, but most likely it is already patented.

a lot of aas, and all that are sold in supplements have been researched at one point, and the patents for the ones like dimethazine, have lapsed d/t no longer being of intrest.
 
bound said:
Copied from old BB.com post back when the letters went out. maybe sd IS synthetic. HUH.


The difference is that because it is not specifically named as a scheduled substance, it is very difficult to actually charge retailers or people who possess the product with any specific crime. Not that it's not possible, but it's extremely unlikely that retailers or people who possess Superdrol would ever be charged with a crime if the substance is not ever specifically added to the list of scheduled substances.

Keep in mind that the act is broadly written, and regardless of whether the product is specifically named or not, it is still technically illegal under the Controlled Substances Act if it's a salt, ester, or ether of any of the currently listed substances, or if it's "chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, corticosteroids, and dehydroepiandrosterone)". Now, if they had released Superdrol as a research chemical, and had never marketed it for human consumption, then the law would not be nearly as clear. A substance that technically meets the definition of illegal under the Controlled Substances Act , but is not ever marketed or sold as a supplement that is meant for human or animal administration can probably squeek by with a bit of legal footing behind it.
(21 CFR 1308.23)

But in it's current form, it's illegal no matter how you look at it. It simply does not meet the legal requirements necessary to sell something as an over the counter supplement (It's a synthetic hormone), so it was technically never legal to sell regardless of it's schedule status.

That doesn't mean I would be concerned if I bought a bottle or two, because the chances of a consumer ever suffering any sort of legal repercussions for buying or possessing Superdrol now or in the future are extremely small. Worst case scenario would most likely be that at some point in the future it is specifically added to the list of substance classified as Schedule III anabolic steroids, at which time it would carry the same risk as possessing pro-hormones or other steroids does now. They would almost certainly not track down people who had bought it in the past, but being caught in possession of it at that time would probably result in criminal charges.

If it's never added to the list, then the chances of anyone other than Anabolic Resources ever facing any penalties are most likely miniscule.

Cna' find much on PUbmed except for liver toxicity studies.
Click to expand...
they can't really just ban any chemical that makes you build muscle, there will always probably be some deviation that is still technically legal. you wouldn't believe what you can buy legally. not that i do this kind of thing anymore, but look up 2c-e, 2c-i, 5-meo-dalt, 5-meo-dmt, 2ct-7. these are not ph's by any means. they are crazy psychedelics but are still technically legal except possibly under the analog act which i believe ph's may fall under as well
 
ohhh, i see what youre saying. so pretty much any and all compounds that would work have already been patented, not just the specific one USED by the company, but any, to prevent competition... gotcha

so companies dont patent the formulas for ph's because their isnt a big enough market for them so they arent concerned about competition? it seems like when a cutting edge formula thats hyped up like, say andromass for example, comes out, they'd want that patent that.

great info!
 
bound said:
phs are derived from natural chems, but are sorta grey area, there's just a ton of loopholes in steroid regulation. Phera for instance is found in elephant piss, if i remember correctly.
Click to expand...

uhhhh no actually they aren't they are SYNTHETIC meaning not a dirivitive of natural substances
 
desoxy METHYL testosterone is found in elephant piss? well aside from elephants having a methylated steroid in their piss, i dont know too many people that get a healthy amount of elephant piss in their diet.

brb, sneaking into the zoo to get a couple bottles of elephant piss.

Invalid Link Removed
 
SERMS have side effects that can be dangerous but I think it's a money issue. Would anyone clone an antibiotic?.....Hell no, there is only one zpack and one company that has rights to curing your chest infection. It's a monopoly of legal drugs for companies that make the world dependant on their drugs.
 
vitamins have side effects that could be dangerous.

it is about money, that is why a pharma company designs hundreds of various compounds with little tweaks to them, and patents them all. even if only 30 of those hundred actually do anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top