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

SARM lawsuits have begun...

VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
As I've stated previously, SARMs are on their way out. They are non-DSHEA compliant(by any stretch of the imagination as they are not naturally occurring and are being studied in the pharmaceutical world...two massive no no's) and any companies making them(or even made them) are going to have a really bad time coming up.

Back in 2009 when many companies got hit by the FDA(iForce Nutrition included...I am no saint), the FDA was kind enough to impact fines + probationary periods on companies, however this has ended apparently as there are a handful of owners who are now serving time in federal prisons for selling unapproved drugs.
 
I agree. SARMS have always kinda freaked me out a little.
 
I gotta sub in for this fun
 
I assumed the op would have posted it by opening the thread
 
Geeze, maybe if Nutrition Distribution spent all this time and money on developing better products they wouldn't feel the need to sue everyone under the guise of "unfair competition" (in part).
 
Keen to see how this unfolds. Not everyone appears to be hiding, new SARMs products hitting the shelves already.
 
Funny ain't it? They'll take our SARMs as being unapproved, yet if you read the insert for a particular brand of flu vaccination it says "There have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with Flulaval". Yet people can DIE from associated complications due to vaccination injury.

I'll stick to Vitamin C, exercise, sunshine & Ostarine, thanks all the same.
 
Nutrition Distribution LLC has filed suit against IronMagLabs over their sale of SARMs.

The complaint has been filed in California with the following allegations:

False Advertising (per the Lanham Act § 43 (a)(1)(B))[1]

Unfair Competition in California (California Business and Professions Code Section 17200)[2]

California Unfair Competition (Business and Professions Code Section 17500)[3]

The initial complaint is now publicly available, PricePlow’s social media follower can get it below:

IronMagLabs is being sued over the use of the SARM Ostarine in two of their products, Osta RX and Super DMZ 4.0.
Super DMZ 4.0

Super DMZ 4.0 Contains Ostarine, a patented investigational drug, which Nutrition Distribution constitutes as unfair competition.
It sells for $99.99.
The complaint alleges that the defendants (IronMagLabs) have misbranded Osta RX and Super DMZ as “dietary supplements
The complaint discusses that Ostarine is “currently under investigation as a new pharmaceutical drug” and not recognized as safe and effective.

The complaint mentions that Osta RX is falsely marketed and advertised as natural, although it is a synthetic substance, and later invokes the FDA’s DSHEA Act of 1994, stating that Osta-RX and Ostarine “Are not vitamins, minerals, herbs, botanicals, or amino acids.

Thus, OSTA RX cannot be legally sold as a “dietary supplement” and its inclusion in such product deems it adulterated”.

The plaintiff, Nutrition Distribution, is also known as Athletic Xtreme
They use their testosterone-boosting supplement, Advanced PCT, as an example of a product that directly competes with Osta RX.
“Users of OSTA RX have little incentive to use a natural product like Advanced PCT until they are hurt or the product is taken off the shelves.

Potential medical side effects are discussed, alleging that IronMagLabs claims “side effects are basically non-existent.”

They are suing for the following:
Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief

– IronMagLabs may no longer produce, license, market, or sell Ostar RX or any other SARM such as Ostarine.

An award for damages to be decided at trial

An award of any and all of IronMagLabs’ profits from these products, as well as ill-gotten gains, treble damages, and punitive damages

Costs and attorney’s fees any other relief the court deems appropriate.
 
IronMagLabs Official Response: “Frivolous”, “Will fight them til the end”
We contacted IronMagLabs for comment, and their owner and CEO, Robert Dimaggio, immediately responded with the following statement:

We feel this is a frivolous lawsuit with baseless claims and we will fight them til the end.
We are getting together with several other supplement companies that are also being sued by Nutrition Distribution on the same grounds.

Thank you,
— Robert DiMaggio, CEO/Founder, IronMagLabs

Nutrition Distribution Speaks out in an interview
From an interview on Natural Products Insider:
“Companies, like Nutrition Distribution, cannot compete in the marketplace when so many competitors sell products with ingredients that the FDA categorizes as unapproved or prescription drugs such as SARMs,” said Michael Keplinger, vice president of Nutrition Distribution, in an emailed statement. “Our main goal is to get products that contain these types of ingredients off of the market.”[6]

That article is also quick to point out that Athletic Xtreme once operated as Anabolic Resources / Anabolic Xtreme, and was fined $500,000 and $100,000 for having adulterated supplements in 2011. Keplinger stated that they took responsibility for their actions and fixed their issues,[6] but clearly do not seem happy that few other companies have done the same, making for an unfair playing field.
Some commentary
This is surely going to cause an uproar from both sides, and the comments are open.

One extremely interesting thing is that this is one of the first times one supplement company has sued another for Unfair Competition per the Lanham Act, at least to our knowledge.

POM Wonderful vs. Coca-Cola Rears its Head?
Earlier this year, we suggested that a case like this type of lawsuit could be a possibility, as it was opened up in the US Supreme Court’s decision to allow POM Wonderful to sue competitor Coca-Cola over Coke’s “Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend” (which contained only 0.3% pomegranate juice).[4]

GTx Not Involved?
Another interesting thing to note is that GTx Inc. is actually the patent-holder for Ostarine![5] We are not sure if they are involved in any way, but surely they must know what’s going on
at this point. They may be preparing their own litigation.
 
Its funny that they plan on fighting it, when even BlackStone Labs has pulled their SARM products as they see the writing on the wall. How do you defend selling something as dietary supplement when it doesn't meet any of the requirements?

Now, if they were to sell them as research chemicals, I would not have a single word to say about the matter.
 
pisses me off when somebody asks more than 2 questions at a time.


Are the research chemical companies excluded from this? What I mean is since its for research and not for human consumption, will they be able to continue selling?

Out of all the companies selling SARMs and not truthfully marketing, anybody have any ideas why IML got sued?

Why not sue more companies, kill more birds with 1 stone concept?

I've asked this before on a different thread, but I have not received an answer yet......due to my lack of know things work of this nature, I am wondering......Since GTx invented osta, wouldn't Gtx be the only company with the formula?
 
datsthat said:
pisses me off when somebody asks more than 2 questions at a time.


Are the research chemical companies excluded from this? What I mean is since its for research and not for human consumption, will they be able to continue selling?

Out of all the companies selling SARMs and not truthfully marketing, anybody have any ideas why IML got sued?

Why not sue more companies, kill more birds with 1 stone concept?

I've asked this before on a different thread, but I have not received an answer yet......due to my lack of know things work of this nature, I am wondering......Since GTx invented osta, wouldn't Gtx be the only company with the formula?
Click to expand...

1. TECHNICALLY, they are excluded, however that hasn't stopped the government from raiding RC sites in the past.

2. Most likely because they were the easiest target

3. $$$

4. Yes. Since this was researched and developed by a pharm company, they would hold the rights to it(unless they didn't pursue the drug any further, and it just became available to any company that wanted to sell it as a medicine, not a supplement)
 
VaughnTrue said:
1. TECHNICALLY, they are excluded, however that hasn't stopped the government from raiding RC sites in the past.

2. Most likely because they were the easiest target

3. $$$

4. Yes. Since this was researched and developed by a pharm company, they would hold the rights to it(unless they didn't pursue the drug any further, and it just became available to any company that wanted to sell it as a medicine, not a supplement)
Click to expand...

Thank you. I think GTx is on phase III of FDA trials or something like that. wouldn't you think that they would keep the formula top secret to prevent another pharmaceutical company from stealing/borrowing. Phase III is no joke, it cost lots of money and time to get that far.
 
datsthat said:
Thank you. I think GTx is on phase III of FDA trials or something like that. wouldn't you think that they would keep the formula top secret to prevent another pharmaceutical company from stealing/borrowing. Phase III is no joke, it cost lots of money and time to get that far.
Click to expand...

I believe specific information about FDA trials are published, which would include the compound nomenclature. Since they have the legal rights to it, competing pharm companies can't really steal it.
 
VaughnTrue said:
I believe specific information about FDA trials are published, which would include the compound nomenclature. Since they have the legal rights to it, competing pharm companies can't really steal it.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Thank you. Do you think this is how research companies got ahold of recipe? I am trying to understand how (supplement & research) companies got a hold of osta recipe?
 
datsthat said:
Gotcha. Thank you. Do you think this is how research companies got ahold of recipe? I am trying to understand how (supplement & research) companies got a hold of osta recipe?
Click to expand...

yea, if you peruse all published trial data, you'll see a lot of potential new drugs and the studies the pharm companies are completing on them
 
VaughnTrue said:
yea, if you peruse all published trial data, you'll see a lot of potential new drugs and the studies the pharm companies are completing on them
Click to expand...

Thank you for taking time to explain to me. the reason why I asked so many questions is because I am a curious bastard and because I have osta and lgd that I plan on taking in future provided that my research proves that its somewhat safe. I accept the risk with any performance based products but will only move forward if risk is in my favor...thats what I convince myself.
 
This suit has been out for a few, I read it about a week ago...
 
cheeky1 said:
Funny ain't it? They'll take our SARMs as being unapproved, yet if you read the insert for a particular brand of flu vaccination it says "There have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with Flulaval". Yet people can DIE from associated complications due to vaccination injury.

I'll stick to Vitamin C, exercise, sunshine & Ostarine, thanks all the same.
Click to expand...

Why are you comparing a flu shot to SARMS?. Seriously? What?
 
why not? both are synthetic drugs made in a lab. although the serious possible side effects are fully known from a flu vaccine which is possibly more dangerous.
 
Exactly... Perfect comparison, people don't think twice about flu shots, I was asked to sign a waver last year when I had to get one
 
I just put this up on the IML getting sued thread, goes for the same here:

Well, it appears that Fight Pharm have come & gone in the blink of an eye. Reliable source informs me they have been given a cease & desist order...i'd only just spotted their Osta product. I wonder who's next (i'm not mentioning names in case I jinx them!) :no:

Also, if financially motivated I doubt there is anything stopping the patent holder from selling the nomenclature or bulk product at their utmost discretion. Always under the guise/understanding of research. They are undoubtedly watching this situation with interest, albeit nervously or with a view to some financial returns.
 
T-Bone said:
Why not compare planes with bumblebees?. They both have wings.
Click to expand...

And both can kill you. I fail to see the issue with drawing a comparison between a relatively new compound/s with side effects that we are beginning to understand based on the evidence known & feedback coming to hand...
...and a superfluous immunosuppressant product with no scientifically proven advantages for use, only deleterious effects as described by the manufacturer themselves.

1 has yet to be approved, the other has never been subjected to a double blind placebo trial to affirm its efficacy in humans. No vaccination ever has.

For mine, SARMs have more scientific base and Ostarine in particular offers far more comparative testing via disclosed research papers than the flu vaccine. Don't like it? feel free to draw your own comparisons.
 
Well in order for anyone to really draw a true comparison of flu shots vs SARMS. Both would have to be used on the mass scale that the flu shot is. Yes there are more known complications/deaths because millions get a flu shot every year. It would be like comparing the rate of crash/death driving a Honda vs a Ferrari. Of course the Honda would have a higher rate because more people are driving them. You just can't call something safe because people have yet to be harmed/killed
 
NurseGray said:
Well in order for anyone to really draw a true comparison of flu shots vs SARMS. Both would have to be used on the mass scale that the flu shot is. Yes there are more known complications/deaths because millions get a flu shot every year. It would be like comparing the rate of crash/death driving a Honda vs a Ferrari. Of course the Honda would have a higher rate because more people are driving them. You just can't call something safe because people have yet to be harmed/killed
Click to expand...

True to an extent, a cross section of population is sufficient. A Canadian research paper released in 2012 showed people who had received the flu shot for the previous season spent more time unwell than those who did not receive it.

Supp co's are awfully quick to jump on anything new to the market, the question I suppose is are some too careless, or even reckless in doing so? I'm content in my understanding of osta and will continue to use it. I am perhaps one of the few people on this forum who would actually qualify as a research volunteer subject with any anti-muscle wasting compound, i'm quite willing to be my own guinea pig with SARMs. It's up to people to make decisions for themselves with SARMs, educated or by blind faith.

Keep in mind also that many of these compounds are not new, they are now in their 2nd/3rd/4th incarnations & have been available for many years from research chem sites.
 
Now there are a select few "mainstream" companies that their primary sales all come from sarms.. But, they clearly state on the label that it's a research chem and not for human consumption, truthfully I feel like its a bit outrageous to have a label claim like that yet be distributing the products to retail supplement stores but nevertheless is there possibility that disclaimer would be able to prevent lawsuits or fda shutting them down?
 
Mkgain1 said:
Now there are a select few "mainstream" companies that their primary sales all come from sarms.. But, they clearly state on the label that it's a research chem and not for human consumption, truthfully I feel like its a bit outrageous to have a label claim like that yet be distributing the products to retail supplement stores but nevertheless is there possibility that disclaimer would be able to prevent lawsuits or fda shutting them down?
Click to expand...

are the products in capsule/tablet form? if so, they're being provided in oral dosing format, which makes them "for human consumption" despite any warnings on the label.
 
VaughnTrue said:
are the products in capsule/tablet form? if so, they're being provided in oral dosing format, which makes them "for human consumption" despite any warnings on the label.
Click to expand...

Yes they are capsules but good point on that

PS.. John Finnegan did it better. Lol just kidding
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top