FDA to begin investigating companies selling Ostarine

You guys were doing worse than the drug cartels selling coke and heroine.
You were selling products that got Americans bigger, stronger, faster and they worked.
We can't have that.
 
Thank you reckless supp shills selling this as a supp recklessly when it should be sold strictly as a research chemical..... thank you very much....
 
How many supplement companies were shut down? Calling something a research chemical doesn't make it so. Companies do countless things that are blatantly illegal and the FDA does nothing. That doesn't make what they're doing legal. Our industry has a **** ton of rules and zero enforcement.
 
1Fast400 said:
How many supplement companies were shut down? Calling something a research chemical doesn't make it so. Companies do countless things that are blatantly illegal and the FDA does nothing. That doesn't make what they're doing legal. Our industry has a **** ton of rules and zero enforcement.
Click to expand...

These research chemical sites are getting greedy i see them advertising triple sarm stacks on facebook, the bottle says not for human consumption but when you start advertising to the masses, people who have no idea what they are even putting in there body you are going to have trouble sooner than later. If they were to just stay underground only known to the few who actually understand what they are buying and somewhat responsible things would be fine.
 
1Fast400 said:
Calling it a research chemical does absolutely nothing to protect you.
Click to expand...

its protects the community.... it lessens "heat" (for example look what this thread came out of... reckless marketing and popularity boom thats now made SARMS a bigger target), it lessens reckless kids from buying something thats pushed as a harmless OTC when its not, it keeps the company pretty safe in a legal loop hole, it leads to more moral marketing of sarms IMO it also labels it as what it is, a research chem. not some fatloss or bulking supp usually geared towards young noobs...
so yes it does protect people....
 
I'm basing my opinion off multiple audits and visits from not only the FDA, but the DEA. I was a major online player in PH back in the day. I sold those sites in 06, but was still part of a lot of discussions after that. We have full time consultants as well as multiple people in house for QC/QA. There is no doubt how the FDA see's the issues, but if they don't choose to enforce, not much can be done.
 
1Fast400 said:
How many supplement companies were shut down? Calling something a research chemical doesn't make it so. Companies do countless things that are blatantly illegal and the FDA does nothing. That doesn't make what they're doing legal. Our industry has a **** ton of rules and zero enforcement.
Click to expand...

but it is infact a research chem. there is alot of ongoing research on them. also alot of anti cancer drugs we use as pct. some are research chems that have already been approved by script for some uses, others are NOT for human use (yet) and are true research chems, like SARMS.

im not saying there is no viable human use. but selling them as a RC or as a OTC supp is a BIG diff in my opinion
 
If I show you a picture of my Italian Mastiff and keep telling you it's a cat, doesn't make it a cat. It's a dog. The FDA doesn't give two ****s what you call something, it's about intent. Cahill had to deal with his as I recall. His DNP was a research chem, spent some years in prison when one of his customers died. Dressing something up, but then treating it as a regular supplement is what matters.
 
Darlz said:
You are confusing yourself. I for one agree with what Yates is saying and others have mentioned before. This forum has turned into marketing strategy for one particular company. They have more threads than any other reps here and are constantly gloating that their products being better than others despite practically the same ingredients, aside from one ingredient which has no research attached to it, and therefor no proof that it actually does anything.
Click to expand...

I was not calling yates out for promoting his company. He came in here and called this thread "propaganda" which I presumed he meant it was just more piled on the negativity of SARMs, which, coincidentally, he used to sell, but as soon as the ship started sinking, is now working for another company.

It's also a bit of a coincidence that the company he works for sells a competing product to HiTech that contains 19-nor-DHEA in a proprietary blend with the amount not listed (at least I couldn't find it). Since HiTech owns the patent on it, I can only assume that Sparta is paying licensing fees to HiTech to sell said product in the first place.

I have nothing against yates, but I just think his post here was a bit disingenuous.

Darlz said:
And all this propaganda is exactly why I have been staying away from this forum. I come here to learn from some of the more experienced guys here, I dont come here to have a shill bang a product over my head until Im sick of hearing about it. And no particular offense to anyone, but that is exactly what this forum is starting to look like. See the reason why your confusing yourself Pogue, is because your accusing Yates of trying to plug his company, when in fact, He didnt actually say anything to promote his brand. He just simply asked what was up with all that propaganda? You then accused him of selling Sarms in which, you were absolutely wrong.
Click to expand...

I never said he sold SARMs currently, I think I made that pretty clear and it's fairly obviously from the companies website. But he did used to sell them and highly promote them to many, many people on this forum. Again, I wasn't accusing him of promoting his brand, just asking him to be more specific in what he was referring to.

Darlz said:
The company he reps for doesnt sell Sarms. THEN, you bring up the fact that the company he USED to rep for and accused him of "jumping ship because they made there name selling sarms" which again is an INCORRECT accusation. Olympus made there name selling PH's before SARMS were even out. They just jumped on it along with every other supplement company. So either your looking to start a problem or you are reading things and completely taking them out of context.
Click to expand...

Whatever. However they made the name for themselves the point is they sold SARMs and I'm sure made boatloads of money doing so. I don't have any problem with that per se, although many others in the industry do. I do have a bit of a problem with companies that were selling GW 501516, which is probably one of the worst and most blatantly dangerous compounds every sold as a supplement. But that's beside the point.

If you're here to learn and feel there are too many reps and infighting and etc then that's something I think you should take up with the administrator of AM. I will admit a lot of the threads are answered exclusively by reps and a lot of their replies often times make my eyes roll in how bad some of their advice is.

Beyond that, I have nothing against yates or what he did in the past or present. I'm not here as a rep for anyone, but I'm just calling them like I see them.
 
Okay well I personally dont think his post was disingenuous. I happen to feel the same way that these boards are filling up with information about one particular companies products. Your problem is that you "presumed he meant it was just more piled on the negativity of SARMs". How you came to the presumption based on one sentence in which he questioned why the board was filling up with one companies propaganda is beyond me. I dont see the correlation at all unless you were just quick to assume his point. I hope your rushed presumption isnt based on the fact that you are logging Hi-Tech products? Regardless though, Im not gonna complain to any mods. Specifically because Im not a complainer. I belong to several other forums that keep the propaganda to a minimum. The only reason I stuck around this board is because of guys like Yates, Dma, and others ....
 
Darlz said:
Okay well I personally dont think his post was disingenuous. I happen to feel the same way that these boards are filling up with information about one particular companies products. Your problem is that you "presumed he meant it was just more piled on the negativity of SARMs". How you came to the presumption based on one sentence in which he questioned why the board was filling up with one companies propaganda is beyond me. I dont see the correlation at all unless you were just quick to assume his point. I hope your rushed presumption isnt based on the fact that you are logging Hi-Tech products? Regardless though, Im not gonna complain to any mods. Specifically because Im not a complainer. I belong to several other forums that keep the propaganda to a minimum. The only reason I stuck around this board is because of guys like Yates, Dma, and others ....
Click to expand...

In my defense, all I'll say is he wasn't very clear in what he meant by the post was propaganda. Was he talking about the post itself? The website it was published on? The response from law enforcement on the issue?

But I still think it's disingenuous to complain about negative posts about SARMs when the person used to sell and actively promote them. But, I can see it from their perspective if they thought it was an attempt by the company in question to put down companies selling SARMs to promote their own brand of "alternatives" so to speak.
 
pogue said:
In my defense, all I'll say is he wasn't very clear in what he meant by the post was propaganda. Was he talking about the post itself? The website it was published on? The response from law enforcement on the issue?

But I still think it's disingenuous to complain about negative posts about SARMs when the person used to sell and actively promote them. But, I can see it from their perspective if they thought it was an attempt by the company in question to put down companies selling SARMs to promote their own brand of "alternatives" so to speak.
Click to expand...

Ahh see, this time you have considered the alternative. I certainly cant fault you for having an opinion sir. So if thats how you took it, then I believe its a simple misunderstanding. Im not trying to kick up dust or cause a fight with anyone. I shouldnt even really be speaking on Yates's behalf and what he meant. The only reason I even got involved was simply because I share his opinion so I wanted it to be known that more people feel the same. This is a great forum with great people, And Ive been reading and researching here for longer than my join date.
 
Darlz said:
I happen to feel the same way that these boards are filling up with information about one particular companies products. Y
Click to expand...

I remember the good old days when I heard "that" about BDC Nutrition. Then Avant. Then LG. Then USPLabs. Then SNS. Then PES. Then BLR. Then OL. Then "insert" next one...

Its pretty simple. If people don't like the subject matter, they certainly can leave and go elsewhere.
 
Admin said:
I remember the good old days when I heard "that" about BDC Nutrition. Then Avant. Then LG. Then USPLabs. Then SNS. Then PES. Then BLR. Then OL. Then "insert" next one...

Its pretty simple. If people don't like the subject matter, they certainly can leave and go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

PES released a lot at one time. So did BLR. And so did OL. Of course they're going to take over the board. But it does seem to come in spurts. It's never 17 brands releasing 1 product around the same time. It's always 1 brand releasing 17 products. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ no complaints here.
 
pogue said:
In my defense, all I'll say is he wasn't very clear in what he meant by the post was propaganda. Was he talking about the post itself? The website it was published on? The response from law enforcement on the issue?

But I still think it's disingenuous to complain about negative posts about SARMs when the person used to sell and actively promote them. But, I can see it from their perspective if they thought it was an attempt by the company in question to put down companies selling SARMs to promote their own brand of "alternatives" so to speak.
Click to expand...

My post had nothing to do with sarms. Personally I could give a flying fuk if sarms are ever available again. Not my deal, not my concern. Again pogue, you are cool with me and I have not a single qualm with you bro.
 
VaughnTrue said:
Propaganda?

I would absolutely like for companies who still sell SARMS to either stop or eventually get punished just like the prohormone companies did. It brings unnecessary government eyes and negative press releases and just brings us closer to not being able to buy anything besides protein powder, and grass extract.
Click to expand...

Please take my rep status out of this equation, because I don't want it to be looked at as a company thing. But if you're concerned with negative attention from the gov't and press, why name your products after banned substances? You could easily make up some cool sounding name.

Again, I'm being completely objective here. The products seem like they work. Lot of good feedback on the Superdrol, I'm following along and interested for myself. Really like some of the affiliated company products as well. Just the names with these ph's make your comment disingenuous. And I think that's why Yates said what he said.
 
If you want you rep affiliation to not be considered when you post, one should not rep for any company.

I post on my phone, so I don't know who reps for who except for the few members I've seen around here since I joined.
 
brofessorx said:
If you want you rep affiliation to not be considered when you post, one should not rep for any company.

I post on my phone, so I don't know who reps for who except for the few members I've seen around here since I joined.
Click to expand...

I spelled it out clear enough. If someone can't grasp what I'm trying to say, oh well.
 
Dma378 said:
Please take my rep status out of this equation, because I don't want it to be looked at as a company thing. But if you're concerned with negative attention from the gov't and press, why name your products after banned substances? You could easily make up some cool sounding name.

Again, I'm being completely objective here. The products seem like they work. Lot of good feedback on the Superdrol, I'm following along and interested for myself. Really like some of the affiliated company products as well. Just the names with these ph's make your comment disingenuous. And I think that's why Yates said what he said.
Click to expand...

If I was the one making those decisions I could give you a completely concrete answer, but all I can provide is my opinion.

If you use names likes those(and use them properly by purchasing the name rights like we do), it brings about new potential customers who buy off name recognition. If you do this though there are 2 outcomes. If you use a nonsense formula that doesn't work, no repeat sale and negative reviews. Or if you use a legit formula(as our prohormone reviews show we absolutely are), then you get the new sales, repeat sale, and positive feedback. As I always say, I get why people don't like the names here in this forum. However, the fact that our products are actually living up to those names, I think shows that users here need to be less concerned about the potential names hi-tech uses and focus on the formulas.

As for this practice bringing with it industry wide scrutiny, on the surface it makes sense. However the reality is that Hi-Tech has been audited by the FDA 16 times, and passed with flying colors each of those times. We follow the rules to a T, and don't deviate from that. For instances like DMAA, we believe we are in the right, so instead of being shady and just selling gray market stuff, we're actually suing the government to make the situation crystal clear moving forward.

At the end of the day, steroid names(with powerful prohormone ingredients) is a very very very different story than selling unapproved and dangerous drugs as dietary supplements after the 2009 raids and 2014 DASCA.
 
VaughnTrue said:
If I was the one making those decisions I could give you a completely concrete answer, but all I can provide is my opinion.

If you use names likes those(and use them properly by purchasing the name rights like we do), it brings about new potential customers who buy off name recognition. If you do this though there are 2 outcomes. If you use a nonsense formula that doesn't work, no repeat sale and negative reviews. Or if you use a legit formula(as our prohormone reviews show we absolutely are), then you get the new sales, repeat sale, and positive feedback. As I always say, I get why people don't like the names here in this forum. However, the fact that our products are actually living up to those names, I think shows that users here need to be less concerned about the potential names hi-tech uses and focus on the formulas.

As for this practice bringing with it industry wide scrutiny, on the surface it makes sense. However the reality is that Hi-Tech has been audited by the FDA 16 times, and passed with flying colors each of those times. We follow the rules to a T, and don't deviate from that. For instances like DMAA, we believe we are in the right, so instead of being shady and just selling gray market stuff, we're actually suing the government to make the situation crystal clear moving forward.

At the end of the day, steroid names(with powerful prohormone ingredients) is a very very very different story than selling unapproved and dangerous drugs as dietary supplements after the 2009 raids and 2014 DASCA.
Click to expand...

Appreciate taking the time to answer like this.
 
brofessorx said:
If you want you rep affiliation to not be considered when you post, one should not rep for any company.

I post on my phone, so I don't know who reps for who except for the few members I've seen around here since I joined.
Click to expand...

I was still able to track you down online, brof. :)

Invalid Link Removed
 
UncleSarm said:
Ostarine is in phase 3 trials if I remember correctly. If this drug passes FDA approval, you cannot have someone else selling your product and undercutting you on the price.
Click to expand...

What is the ICD-10.. medical diagnosis that is going to allow physicians to prescribe this, do you no? I'm curious.
 
Placebo1985 said:
Why are they going after ostarine in particular?
Click to expand...

Because of GTX. They own the patent and the rights too it and spent millions with clinical trials. It would be like a cancer company developing a cancer drug only to find out you can purchase it online for $50. This isnt about the dangers of SARMS but about money which is fine. You shouldnt be able to sell it generically if someone owns the rights to it
 
It's about sticking it to tha man.
Invalid Link Removed
 
Misfit28 said:
I would imagine sarcopenia, cancer and/or HIV/AIDS due to muscle wasting and bone loss.
Click to expand...

Wait a second... are you saying all I have to do is become weak and frail, get aids, cancer, or cut off my weener for gender reassignment, and then I can finally qualify legally for a synthetic diluted wanna-be androgen?! Well hell, why didn't you say so? That was easy!
 
Like others said, I personally don't use SARM's so I could really care less.

BUT ...

At the same time this goes to show (once again) how involved they are in the supplement industry and how they continue to take away OUR rights of what we choose to purchase and what we don't. That is what is always eye opening to me, the freedom of the consumer is always taken and no one stands up for our rights.




-Spaz
 
Big_Spaz said:
Like others said, I personally don't use SARM's so I could really care less.

BUT ...

At the same time this goes to show (once again) how involved they are in the supplement industry and how they continue to take away OUR rights of what we choose to purchase and what we don't. That is what is always eye opening to me, the freedom of the consumer is always taken and no one stands up for our rights.




-Spaz
Click to expand...

Ostarine is patented. So, the patent holder would have to license the patent to companies otherwise it's patent infringement and not the man taking away our rights.
 
Big_Spaz said:
Like others said, I personally don't use SARM's so I could really care less.

BUT ...

At the same time this goes to show (once again) how involved they are in the supplement industry and how they continue to take away OUR rights of what we choose to purchase and what we don't. That is what is always eye opening to me, the freedom of the consumer is always taken and no one stands up for our rights.




-Spaz
Click to expand...

The consumer has no freedom to use a patented substance that is being sold without being licensed from the patent holder.
Plus if the patent holder did license it, it would not be sold for $30 a bottle. More like $30 a pill because it would be prescpription.
The patent holder wants to make its investment back during the years that its patent is in effect.

Woody said:
Ostarine is patented. So, the patent holder would have to license the patent to companies otherwise it's patent infringement and not the man taking away our rights.
Click to expand...

:biggthumpup:
 
Woody said:
Ostarine is patented. So, the patent holder would have to license the patent to companies otherwise it's patent infringement and not the man taking away our rights.
Click to expand...

You're 100% correct. I couldn't agree more, Woody. But I think Spaz was making a different point, one I also agree with.

It's sad to see vets pointing the finger like this. No matter who's wrong or right, it's industry sabotage to make a public spectacle of it and that's the bottom line. It hurts everybody, consumers included! Handle it like gentlemen for cryin' out loud, off the boards.

All the reps i see here work for fine companies. They ALL have something unique to offer the market. It's futile and ultimately self-defeating to spread contempt among each other. It doesn't gain you market share, it ends up being a turn-off to customers who only want products. They want to support both companies, and don't appreciate being manipulated into choosing sides!

And yates, I like you bro so I hope you learn fast - don't be provoked into playing this game. You can't win and it trashes the field YOU still have to play on. ;)
 
NutraChem said:
You're 100% correct. I couldn't agree more, Woody. But I think Spaz was making a different point, one I also agree with.

It's sad to see vets pointing the finger like this. No matter who's wrong or right, it's industry sabotage to make a public spectacle of it and that's the bottom line. It hurts everybody, consumers included! Handle it like gentlemen for cryin' out loud, off the boards.

All the reps i see here work for fine companies. They ALL have something unique to offer the market. It's futile and ultimately self-defeating to spread contempt among each other. It doesn't gain you market share, it ends up being a turn-off to customers who only want products. They want to support both companies, and don't appreciate being manipulated into choosing sides!

And yates, I like you bro so I hope you learn fast - don't be provoked into playing this game. You can't win and it trashes the field YOU still have to play on. ;)
Click to expand...
Very true, thanks homie
 
Woody said:
Ostarine is patented. So, the patent holder would have to license the patent to companies otherwise it's patent infringement and not the man taking away our rights.
Click to expand...

It's not so much patent infringement as much as it becomes failure to protect intellectual property. As long as the drug is not approved, it's just research and they cannot protect that. However, once you have a product, if you don't aggressively protect your rights, you can lose them.
For example, if the patent holder let's company A copy its product for 6 months, then all of a sudden company B starts copying it too. If the patent holder goes after company B for patent infringement, company B can argue that there is no patent infringement because they didn't care to protect their IP from company A. Basically, you either go after everybody like a rabid junkyard dog, or you lose the right to go after anybody.
 
NutraChem said:
Wait a second... are you saying all I have to do is become weak and frail, get aids, cancer, or cut off my weener for gender reassignment, and then I can finally qualify legally for a synthetic diluted wanna-be androgen?! Well hell, why didn't you say so? That was easy!
Click to expand...

If you're a fan of Chuck Palahniuk (author of Fight Club) check out his book Invalid Link Removed, which is hilarious black comedy. In one passage, the protagonist is desperate to find steroids, so he finds a cat with leukemia and gets a veterinarian to prescribe Winstrol to it and uses it on himself.
 
pogue said:
If you're a fan of Chuck Palahniuk (author of Fight Club) check out his book Invalid Link Removed, which is hilarious black comedy. In one passage, the protagonist is desperate to find steroids, so he finds a cat with leukemia and gets a veterinarian to prescribe Winstrol to it and uses it on himself.
Click to expand...

Anything for the gains!
 
pogue said:
If you're a fan of Chuck Palahniuk (author of Fight Club) check out his book Invalid Link Removed, which is hilarious black comedy. In one passage, the protagonist is desperate to find steroids, so he finds a cat with leukemia and gets a veterinarian to prescribe Winstrol to it and uses it on himself.
Click to expand...
Sounds like I need to buy a cat lol
 
Jana is a big Palahniuk fan, I'll make this joke to her

(And give her a heart attack lol)
 
pogue said:
If you're a fan of Chuck Palahniuk (author of Fight Club) check out his book Invalid Link Removed, which is hilarious black comedy. In one passage, the protagonist is desperate to find steroids, so he finds a cat with leukemia and gets a veterinarian to prescribe Winstrol to it and uses it on himself.
Click to expand...

Leukemic pets... never would have thought of that! Maybe I should get that book. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top