Guest viewing is limited

DS Craze Lawsuit and FDA Action

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haha, seriously you did not see caffeine, Pat. I think I heard or read or saw something low like 80 mg a scoop, but I am not on Alcar or Mr. Coopers regime of memory supps so maybe I recall that incorrectly. It may be Autokal that said content back in the beginning of this thread somewhere.

This is almost comical. So only one or two things are showing and both are n-benzyl or PEA related. What about other stuff that is supposed to be in there? Who the heck needs caffeine if you got better in there.
 
n-benzylidene-2-pea so would you suspect this to have activity PA or just be another relatively inactive compound
 
Patrick Arnold said:
that is because i only showed that part of the chromatogram in order to blow it up so u can see better

the full chromatogram showed just one other peak. i think its n,n-diethyl-2-phenethylamine but since i have no standard i cant verify

its odd i didnt see caffeine. unless craze doesnt contain caffeine.
Click to expand...

Craze contains the following ingredients:

1) Ascorbic Acid
2) Trimethglycine
3) Creatine Monohydrate
4) L-Citrulline
5) Dendrobium Extract (concentrated for Dendrobine, Dendroxine, Dendramine, B-PEA, N,N-Dimethyl-B-PEA, N,N-Diethyl-B-PEA)
6) B-Phenylethylamine HCl
7) Citrus Reticulata Extract (concentrated for N-Methyltyramine)
8) Caffeine Anhydrous

=================

This is the 2nd time on this thread that you weren't sure what ingredients were in Craze. As you posted earlier that you didn't know that it contained Creatine, and now you are posting that you didn't see any Caffeine in the sample that you tested.

It seems pretty clear that you didn't get a bottle of Craze, since you would know what the ingredients were from the product label if you indeed had a bottle. Where did you get the sample that you tested? The ingredients I listed above are what is in Craze, which is more information it seems than what you got from the guy that sent you this sample.

Let me ask you this, what seems more likely, A or B?

A) That 1000s of bottles of Craze have been manufactured and sold that didn't include either Creatine or Caffeine (or any of the other ingredients on the label), but instead contained only the two ingredients that you found in the testing of your sample: namely, N-Benzyl-B-PEA and (what appears to be) N,N-Diethyl-B-PEA. Why would any company put Caffeine and Creatine on the label and then not put those two ingredients in the product? Both of them are very inexpensive and extremely easy to get. And they are both very easy to test for. It is simple to determine if either Creatine or Caffeine is found in a product and it is inexpensive to test for these known compounds. Why would any company not put them in the product? Both of them also work well; there is zero reason to not include them.

OR

B) The sample you received from some unknown person on the Internet was not Craze at all and instead was a sample of these two ingredients (N-Benzyl and N,N-Diethyl B-PEA) that this unknown person told you was Craze.

Patrick, I think you need to check who you received the sample from. How is it possible that the sample you tested didn't even contain Caffeine?
 
Gotcha. Yea i dont know anything about this type of stuff. Just thought thats what he said.
 
3clipseGT said:
I thought he also said he did not look for caffeine though either.
Click to expand...
I will ask you to reread this post first:

Patrick Arnold said:
that is because i only showed that part of the chromatogram in order to blow it up so u can see better

the full chromatogram showed just one other peak. i think its n,n-diethyl-2-phenethylamine but since i have no standard i cant verify

its odd i didnt see caffeine. unless craze doesnt contain caffeine.
Click to expand...

The full chromatogram showed just one other peak. Therefore, it is assumed, and Pat, correct me if I'm wrong, there are only two ingredients present in a sample of a product that contains 8 other ingredients.

Lets try and understand this: in 5.3grams of a serving, do you think it is possible that only two ingredients are present? That would mean that these "PEA" derivatives would be in doses that would be exceeding that would be plausible (being multiple GRAMs each).
 
KerplunkDS said:
I will ask you to reread this post first:



The full chromatogram showed just one other peak. Therefore, it is assumed, and Pat, correct me if I'm wrong, there are only two ingredients present in a sample of a product that contains 8 other ingredients.

Lets try and understand this: in 5.3grams of a serving, do you think it is possible that only two ingredients are present? That would mean that these "PEA" derivatives would be in doses that would be exceeding that would be plausible (being multiple GRAMs each).
Click to expand...

I wasnt defending anyone or calling anyone out. I dont wish to be drug into this.

I take craze and love it, which i have stated.

I just thought PA had said that he did not look for caffeine.
 
3clipseGT said:
I wasnt defending anyone or calling anyone out. I dont wish to be drug into this.

I take craze and love it, which i have stated.

I just thought PA had said that he did not look for caffeine.
Click to expand...
I apologize if I felt like I was attacking you. I was honestly just trying to highlight the main points with an explanation on my end of things. Again, its okay.
 
KerplunkDS said:
I apologize if I felt like I was attacking you. I was honestly just trying to highlight the main points with an explanation on my end of things. Again, its okay.
Click to expand...


I figured so, just didnt want things misconstrued. Alls good man.
 
and still the saga continues...

Had to LOL at the bb.com thread though, turned my back on their site long ago. However it was interesting to see Cahill's comments and for that matter Neuron's comments too... (while they lasted). DS seem to be confident and have offered explanations for a variety of accusations and bull**** thrown at them so far. Right now what is more concerning to me is how so very different results could be obtained from what should have been similar tests conducted.

Unlikely and improbable as it may seen, if PA's "sample" was spiked in some way, or alternatively if Cahill have been lying about craze... it's not gonna look good for whoever's wrong... i would make sure i was 110% sure if i was either one of them...

Bottom line... it's always the supps doing well/ground breaking that cause controversy! No-one would give a flying f*ck if craze was a mediocre supp!

Anyway i've upped my dosage of craze to a casual 2 scoops an hour and i piss excellence. Run at me h8ers
 
JezPudzian said:
and still the saga continues...

Had to LOL at the bb.com thread though, turned my back on their site long ago. However it was interesting to see Cahill's comments and for that matter Neuron's comments too... (while they lasted). DS seem to be confident and have offered explanations for a variety of accusations and bull**** thrown at them so far. Right now what is more concerning to me is how so very different results could be obtained from what should have been similar tests conducted.

Unlikely and improbable as it may seen, if PA's "sample" was spiked in some way, or alternatively if Cahill have been lying about craze... it's not gonna look good for whoever's wrong... i would make sure i was 110% sure if i was either one of them...

Bottom line... it's always the supps doing well/ground breaking that cause controversy! No-one would give a flying f*ck if craze was a mediocre supp!

Anyway i've upped my dosage of craze to a casual 2 scoops an hour and i piss excellence. Run at me h8ers
Click to expand...

Kinda just hope we get some closure one day, but this may not even be the case.
 
KerplunkDS said:
I apologize if I felt like I was attacking you. I was honestly just trying to highlight the main points with an explanation on my end of things. Again, its okay.
Click to expand...

How come DS has only responded on BB and not here? It seems like it would make more sense:confused:
 
mw1 said:
How come DS has only responded on BB and not here? It seems like it would make more sense:confused:
Click to expand...

How much Craze is bb sending through the mail. Perhaps a good idea to have company defending product. Did somebody say bb deleted contrary information? Did they delete Cahill or DS information?
 
996ttelise said:
How much Craze is bb sending through the mail. Perhaps a good idea to have company defending product. Did somebody say bb deleted contrary information? Did they delete Cahill or DS information?
Click to expand...

Just saw in a thread Neuron is banned. Don't know if related, but I wouldn't be surprised.
 
rob112 said:
Just saw in a thread Neuron is banned. Don't know if related, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Click to expand...

This type of horse**** is why I could never be a member in there. God forbid people who purchase a supplement want to know about it's safety.
 
Geoforce said:
This type of horse**** is why I could never be a member in there. God forbid people who purchase a supplement want to know about it's safety.
Click to expand...

I see your side most definitely but do you see how he acts? Just from what i read over their i thought was rediculous.
 
Link to thread please?
 
996ttelise said:
Haha, seriously you did not see caffeine, Pat. I think I heard or read or saw something low like 80 mg a scoop, but I am not on Alcar or Mr. Coopers regime of memory supps so maybe I recall that incorrectly. It may be Autokal that said content back in the beginning of this thread somewhere.

This is almost comical. So only one or two things are showing and both are n-benzyl or PEA related. What about other stuff that is supposed to be in there? Who the heck needs caffeine if you got better in there.
Click to expand...


i saw what i saw.

not everything is gonna elute from my column at the conditions it was set at

caffeine however should have
 
ShadowJack said:
Craze contains the following ingredients:

1) Ascorbic Acid
2) Trimethglycine
3) Creatine Monohydrate
4) L-Citrulline
5) Dendrobium Extract (concentrated for Dendrobine, Dendroxine, Dendramine, B-PEA, N,N-Dimethyl-B-PEA, N,N-Diethyl-B-PEA)
6) B-Phenylethylamine HCl
7) Citrus Reticulata Extract (concentrated for N-Methyltyramine)
8) Caffeine Anhydrous

=================

This is the 2nd time on this thread that you weren't sure what ingredients were in Craze. As you posted earlier that you didn't know that it contained Creatine, and now you are posting that you didn't see any Caffeine in the sample that you tested.

It seems pretty clear that you didn't get a bottle of Craze, since you would know what the ingredients were from the product label if you indeed had a bottle. Where did you get the sample that you tested? The ingredients I listed above are what is in Craze, which is more information it seems than what you got from the guy that sent you this sample.

Let me ask you this, what seems more likely, A or B?

A) That 1000s of bottles of Craze have been manufactured and sold that didn't include either Creatine or Caffeine (or any of the other ingredients on the label), but instead contained only the two ingredients that you found in the testing of your sample: namely, N-Benzyl-B-PEA and (what appears to be) N,N-Diethyl-B-PEA. Why would any company put Caffeine and Creatine on the label and then not put those two ingredients in the product? Both of them are very inexpensive and extremely easy to get. And they are both very easy to test for. It is simple to determine if either Creatine or Caffeine is found in a product and it is inexpensive to test for these known compounds. Why would any company not put them in the product? Both of them also work well; there is zero reason to not include them.

OR

B) The sample you received from some unknown person on the Internet was not Craze at all and instead was a sample of these two ingredients (N-Benzyl and N,N-Diethyl B-PEA) that this unknown person told you was Craze.

Patrick, I think you need to check who you received the sample from. How is it possible that the sample you tested didn't even contain Caffeine?
Click to expand...



i threw the bottle of craze out after i extracted a sample. the jar i received was sealed

creatine will not elute from my column that is perhaps why i did not see it

think what you want, i dont care
 
KerplunkDS said:
I will ask you to reread this post first:



The full chromatogram showed just one other peak. Therefore, it is assumed, and Pat, correct me if I'm wrong, there are only two ingredients present in a sample of a product that contains 8 other ingredients.

Lets try and understand this: in 5.3grams of a serving, do you think it is possible that only two ingredients are present? That would mean that these "PEA" derivatives would be in doses that would be exceeding that would be plausible (being multiple GRAMs each).
Click to expand...


those are the only two things that appeared to elute from my column and were picked up by the mass spectrometer.
 
JezPudzian said:
and still the saga continues...

Had to LOL at the bb.com thread though, turned my back on their site long ago. However it was interesting to see Cahill's comments and for that matter Neuron's comments too... (while they lasted). DS seem to be confident and have offered explanations for a variety of accusations and bull**** thrown at them so far. Right now what is more concerning to me is how so very different results could be obtained from what should have been similar tests conducted.

Unlikely and improbable as it may seen, if PA's "sample" was spiked in some way, or alternatively if Cahill have been lying about craze... it's not gonna look good for whoever's wrong... i would make sure i was 110% sure if i was either one of them...

Bottom line... it's always the supps doing well/ground breaking that cause controversy! No-one would give a flying f*ck if craze was a mediocre supp!

Anyway i've upped my dosage of craze to a casual 2 scoops an hour and i piss excellence. Run at me h8ers
Click to expand...

i have nothing to really worry about because the facts on my end are that i received a bottle, i tested it, and reported the results and showed the results

that is all i claim and its the truth so no matter what i told the truth
 
3clipseGT said:
I see your side most definitely but do you see how he acts? Just from what i read over their i thought was rediculous.
Click to expand...

I didn't read anything so I probably shouldn't be commenting. I just thought from what people were saying he was trying to inform customers. If he was out of line he was out of line, but banning someone for commenting negatively about a product (if that's what happened) isn't a place I'd want to hang out at. Imagine being banned for saying in a log you saw no results merely because it put down a board sponsor.

Not to mention they banned Coop. Any place that bans Coop is nuts :)
 
Geoforce said:
I didn't read anything so I probably shouldn't be commenting. I just thought from what people were saying he was trying to inform customers. If he was out of line he was out of line, but banning someone for commenting negatively about a product (if that's what happened) isn't a place I'd want to hang out at. Imagine being banned for saying in a log you saw no results merely because it put down a board sponsor.

Not to mention they banned Coop. Any place that bans Coop is nuts :)
Click to expand...

Oh i agree completely. I steer clear from their. Lol
 
Geoforce said:
I didn't read anything so I probably shouldn't be commenting. I just thought from what people were saying he was trying to inform customers. If he was out of line he was out of line, but banning someone for commenting negatively about a product (if that's what happened) isn't a place I'd want to hang out at. Imagine being banned for saying in a log you saw no results merely because it put down a board sponsor.

Not to mention they banned Coop. Any place that bans Coop is nuts :)
Click to expand...

Would defo say some of his comments were out of line, think someone touched upon a nerve and he just unleashed multiple comments out towards DS. Was asking for trouble really.

But anyway most of the time bb is a joke, nuf said.
 
Geoforce said:
I didn't read anything so I probably shouldn't be commenting. I just thought from what people were saying he was trying to inform customers. If he was out of line he was out of line, but banning someone for commenting negatively about a product (if that's what happened) isn't a place I'd want to hang out at. Imagine being banned for saying in a log you saw no results merely because it put down a board sponsor.

Not to mention they banned Coop. Any place that bans Coop is nuts :)
Click to expand...
I will say with confidence, that DS has never contacted any moderators or forum officials to ban any member for speaking about our products. It is under my personal belief that Neuron has requested to be banned or has deleted his posts himself.
 
KerplunkDS said:
I will say with confidence, that DS has never contacted any moderators or forum officials to ban any member for speaking about our products. It is under my personal belief that Neuron has requested to be banned or has deleted his posts himself.
Click to expand...


why would anyone request to be banned?
 
KerplunkDS said:
I will say with confidence, that DS has never contacted any moderators or forum officials to ban any member for speaking about our products. It is under my personal belief that Neuron has requested to be banned or has deleted his posts himself.
Click to expand...

Funny guy.
 
Get neuron into this thread. It would make the 'he said, she said' game a lot easier. It would also stop me having to go over to BB.com lol.
 
KerplunkDS said:
Why else would he be banned?
Click to expand...

Doesn't BB have a long history of banning people who are critical of supplements? I've heard numerous times they do. FWIW I was (nor do I think anyone else was) never trying to say DS got someone banned for being critical, I just think it's something they tend to do, limit the badmouthing of those who support their forum. Which is fine if all someone does is grind a personal ax about a company but the line is pretty fine. Do I deserve to be banned if I give a critical review of a product I logged by a board sponsor?

I can't figure out why you think the ban was at his request...
 
Geoforce said:
Doesn't BB have a long history of banning people who are critical of supplements? I've heard numerous times they do. FWIW I was (nor do I think anyone else was) never trying to say DS got someone banned for being critical, I just think it's something they tend to do, limit the badmouthing of those who support their forum. Which is fine if all someone does is grind a personal ax about a company but the line is pretty fine. Do I deserve to be banned if I give a critical review of a product I logged by a board sponsor?

I can't figure out why you think the ban was at his request...
Click to expand...

its quite plausible that some moderator banned him and DS had no part in it
 
Students request to be banned for 1-2 weeks all the time before finals week on smaller forums. Anyways... Lol

I think Kerplunk is just attempting to tell us all DS has no authority in the management of bb's forum content. Just as no sponsor does here.
 
Geoforce said:
Doesn't BB have a long history of banning people who are critical of supplements? I've heard numerous times they do. FWIW I was (nor do I think anyone else was) never trying to say DS got someone banned for being critical, I just think it's something they tend to do, limit the badmouthing of those who support their forum. Which is fine if all someone does is grind a personal ax about a company but the line is pretty fine. Do I deserve to be banned if I give a critical review of a product I logged by a board sponsor?

I can't figure out why you think the ban was at his request...
Click to expand...

In short, no. BB.com normally only bans non-constructive comments (MuscleTech sucks!) or things that can get the OP in legal trouble. Usually problems like this will not first result in banning, the mod team tends to give you a chance to "prove" your claims but it's up to their interpretation whether the poster is going to be constructive or not in the end. As a retailer, they can't really let unsubstantiated claims be posted all over the place about their companies' products. Whether neuron falls into this category is up to you to interpret. No one has stated publicly why he is banned now, but what kerplunk said is actually a somewhat common belief over there at this point.

They are happy to have science based discussions occur, IMO it happens much more often than here. Much of it gets lost in the shuffle of noob's asking if creatine is steroids and stuff that you don't know how to wade through if you are not used to the board. When the claims get to potentially libelous areas, though, it gets snuffed out.

If you are a company rep, you are held to a little different standard since you may have an agenda when discussing a companys product. You can discuss the validity of ingredients, etc but naming a product that isn't yours in a negative light won't end well. If you're logging a product as a company rep you can be honest but you should probably be as constructive as possible. Don't say something tastes like ****, just say you dont enjoy the taste, lol.
 
Patrick Arnold said:
why would anyone request to be banned?
Click to expand...

Geoforce said:
Doesn't BB have a long history of banning people who are critical of supplements? I've heard numerous times they do. FWIW I was (nor do I think anyone else was) never trying to say DS got someone banned for being critical, I just think it's something they tend to do, limit the badmouthing of those who support their forum. Which is fine if all someone does is grind a personal ax about a company but the line is pretty fine. Do I deserve to be banned if I give a critical review of a product I logged by a board sponsor?

I can't figure out why you think the ban was at his request...
Click to expand...

Why is his blog set to private and invitation only? Why are his posts deleted? I don't know, this is why I do not have an answer for you. If we were trying to get him banned on bb.com why haven't we done that weeks ago? Why now? Why didn't we have the thread removed weeks ago?

We have had countless threads of users discussing side-effects (negative ones at that) on bb.com and boards all over the internet, and these threads are still there without intervention from DS and involvement from any mods.

It seems we both are looking at this from different perspectives and it seems that if we are going to disagree on some aspects of the situation. The absolute truth on my end, and I can confirm, nor do I have any intentions or need to lie, is that we have no involvement with the deletion of any posts nor the banning of any members regarding the discussion of Craze.
 
Royd The Noyd said:
Students request to be banned for 1-2 weeks all the time before finals week on smaller forums. Anyways... Lol

I think Kerplunk is just attempting to tell us all DS has no authority in the management of bb's forum content. Just as no sponsor does here.
Click to expand...
I was one of those students at some point a few years ago. And that is essentially what I am saying. Whether Andy or I have been banned in the past, Matt, or anyone else at DS cannot go and have a ban lifted for us. It just simply not our practice nor our place to intervene.
 
KerplunkDS said:
I will say with confidence, that DS has never contacted any moderators or forum officials to ban any member for speaking about our products. It is under my personal belief that Neuron has requested to be banned or has deleted his posts himself.
Click to expand...

No offense but you are full of **** on that one
 
D3Baseball said:
In short, no. BB.com normally only bans non-constructive comments (MuscleTech sucks!) or things that can get the OP in legal trouble. Usually problems like this will not first result in banning, the mod team tends to give you a chance to "prove" your claims but it's up to their interpretation whether the poster is going to be constructive or not in the end. As a retailer, they can't really let unsubstantiated claims be posted all over the place about their companies' products. Whether neuron falls into this category is up to you to interpret. No one has stated publicly why he is banned now, but what kerplunk said is actually a somewhat common belief over there at this point.

They are happy to have science based discussions occur, IMO it happens much more often than here. Much of it gets lost in the shuffle of noob's asking if creatine is steroids and stuff that you don't know how to wade through if you are not used to the board. When the claims get to potentially libelous areas, though, it gets snuffed out.

If you are a company rep, you are held to a little different standard since you may have an agenda when discussing a companys product. You can discuss the validity of ingredients, etc but naming a product that isn't yours in a negative light won't end well. If you're logging a product as a company rep you can be honest but you should probably be as constructive as possible. Don't say something tastes like ****, just say you dont enjoy the taste, lol.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate you trying to be the voice of reason, I'll have to disagree entirely. The amount of bans with ulterior motives is easily on par with the amount of rightful bans. Also, the appeal process is non-existent.

Science discussions often result in the thread being closed and the OP banned, even if they're not representatives. BB.com shelters any potentially profit-losing discussion, especially with regards to Musclepharm and other undercover affiliates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top