Pretty sure it would already be active.
As long as it is not a scheduled ingredient, it should still be sold as a research chemical.
Wouldn’t the ban be put on hold while the case is disputed? I guess RC works but I don’t know how you’d get around that
I really like it for the final event at a powerlifting or strongman contest, where you are exhausted and already going to feel like you got hit by a bus after. That extra push can drive you through your pain/exhaustion and it doesn’t matter if you crash once it’s over.
The crash from that stuff made me feel like im dying. Yeah, my workouts were nuts on it but i couldnt deal with not being able to function and struggling to breath for hours after. No thanks.I really like it for the final event at a powerlifting or strongman contest, where you are exhausted and already going to feel like you got hit by a bus after. That extra push can drive you through your pain/exhaustion and it doesn’t matter if you crash once it’s over.
I don’t expect the government to sympathize though
INteresting how everyone responds to it. Myself, I dont crash hard from stimulants.
What's the argument for it being a dietary supplement?
Their argument is that it is a plant extract
Derived from and existing naturally in a plant are two different things. The FDA claims that it doesn't exist naturally in a plant. Does anybody have proof that it does?
Yeah not something I use in training unless it would basically make or break the session. And I’m not talking about hypertrophy work ever, I mean strength. Vasoconstrictors are a bad idea if you’re trying to get swoll in general.
Had always been claimed to be an extract of geranium. I think this is one where chinese coa’s were faked. Id be curious to know more detail behind how eli lilly discovered it or invented it.
It's not quite over yet.
Well yeah.
Interesting. Based on that paper and this one (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682735/ ) it looks like it depends on which region you get your Geranium from. Does anybody have the FDA responding to either of these studies? At the end of the day it'll still be available, just not as a dietary supplement. That is unless they make it a controlled substance, which it does have the potential to be ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4272877/ )
Some labs testing methods are not reliable just look at any of the drug kits they test when they pull people over. So many of those arrested because flour or oregano tests as cocaine or thc. But they are approved and used because it's within the govs standards. The FDA has its own set of standards but they are hardly the final word. I don't see the FDA caring about any tests outside it's own labs. Even though this lab was in Texas.
If you're going to call out the FDA on not caring about science, let's use science and not unrelated correlations between lab studies and field equipment used by non-experts. The testing method is fine, but the point of the paper you posted is that it depends on what you sample (ie, not all Geranium plants are created equal). And it looks like one of the judges dissented though, so the there is still a possibility.
Not caring about the latest science. If you read the studies on DMAA the methods used were different. But yes there's also regional factors.
That's them doing their job as competent analytical scientists. What's the issue?
Are you unaware of the politics and scandals at the FDA? Not sure why you think every FDA scientist is competent or even moral. I guess you think they are beyond human beings and infallible.
I work constantly with the FDA and have since 1999 and they haven't always been great experiences. Again, you're calling out the FDA for ignoring science, but you're not citing anything actually factual to support that. This is all facebook-worthy, the FDA is out to get you, boogeyman BS. The paper you cited is from 2013 and the work was performed by a company called Environ who was hired by USP Labs to do it. I'm not at all doubting that the work is accurate, but let's stop pretending that there's not the chance of bias.
Actually, my mistake. The paper you cited was from 2012, but was also funded by USP Labs.
Not citing? I cited the study which shows it's in the plant which the FDA has ignored by claiming otherwise.
What's the context? Or are we just giving pot to healthy 12 year olds?
Yes and nearly all drugs approved by the FDA are funded by the drug companies. Did you not know that? It has no bearing on the results of the paper in this case.
www.webmd.com
Clinical trials are funded by pharma companies. Drug approval isn't based on a single analytical paper. Supplement companies have a far lower bar to get over to get on a shelf.
That doesn't give the context at all.Health & Parenting
Here you'll find parenting tips and informative information including expert parenting advice for each age and stage in your child's development.
That's dodging the point. If you did it on purpose, there's no discussing it with you. If you did it accidentally, youre too want to.
I'm not dodging anything. If you want to have a discussion about facts, then present facts. If you want to claim that this incidence of an FDA ruling is wrong because of a general distrust of the FDA based on an imaginary example, then I'll leave you and Karen to discuss essential oils.
Have you published before? This is generic end matter found in most articles. Again, you're comparing clinical trials to a single analytical paper. Peer reviewers are typically blinded, even if the editor isn't.
I'm drugged to the gills, my good man.
I'm asking what context are you saying that a 12 year old would benefit from marijuana where an opioid like oxycontin would be relevant? I asked for clarification of your vague example and rather than answer the question of context, you're accusing me of dodging the point and defending the FDA.
Dude OC only has one use..
And you're saying "12 year olds" with no context so you can make it sound horrible with zero context. A 12 year old with a sprained ankle is different than a 12 year old with terminal, metastatic pancreatic cancer, dude.
Yes they are suffering but that's the price of not putting enough into researching a cure less so than thinking it's a good idea to give these kids newer highly potent addictive pills. There are many safer less toxic pain meds they are and can be using.
Thank you!Ping, Li, and Fleming: The First Three Studies Where DMAA Was...
The Ping, Li, and Fleming DMAA studies were the original three that showed that DMAA may be found naturally in geraniums. But there were objections...blog.priceplow.com
Pull up your yoga pants, grab your pumpkin spice latte, and join the other essential oil moms over in the corner because you have zero idea what the hell you're talking about and just regurgitate the same big pharma tropes seen everywhere online. Kids and adults should not be getting opioids outside of special circumstances and I have said repeatedly on this board that I'd be in favor of turning back use to only cancer pain and a few other terminal and palliative care scenarios. To say that opioids have no place ever is wrong and simply stupid. If you have a 12 year old with terminal cancer and it's metastasizing throughout their body and they're looking at a couple of weeks tops, you go ahead and ask for the cannabis treatment which won't do a thing because you're worried about long term addiction in somebody who will never see 13.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Researching DMAA | Supplements | 6 | ||
| 1,3 DMAA | Supplements | 0 | ||
|
Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals prohibited from selling DMAA supplements | Supplements | 52 | |
| USA Supplements LLC Yohiminine and DMAA | Supplements | 3 | ||
|
What supplements still have DMAA/1,3-dimethylamylamine? | Supplements | 7 |