FDA issues warning letters regarding DMHA and phenibut

[rob112]

I really like this statement.

Not to go way off topic, but I don't use facebook. I feel that society has adopted a lot of bad habits and individuals have been manipulated and have become isolated.

A few months ago, when my dad had a stroke, I was fortunate to have some people who really stepped up to help out. I would say thank you and a couple times they would say, "What are friends for?"

And I secretly thought to myself, "Likes?"

I agree 100 percent. The poor attitude and communication is getting into regular life too much.

That’s why I prefer here Vs social media when I have a minute.

I feel for you too, my dad died of a sudden heart attack in 2015. Hardest thing I ever dealt with in my life.

 

[rob112]

I've never used Phenibut but I want to try it now. I love kava kava and other herbals. My favorite sleep aid has been probably discontinued. Sedation by Vein Nutrition. @VeinNutrition

I never really got anything out of it personally. I used AI sports years ago. Lots of people love it, but not for me.

 

[HIT4ME]

I agree 100 percent. The poor attitude and communication is getting into regular life too much.

That’s why I prefer here Vs social media when I have a minute.

I feel for you too, my dad died of a sudden heart attack in 2015. Hardest thing I ever dealt with in my life. No regrets, but lots of missing him(every day still).

Sorry about your dad man. I am lucky that he survived and while I really had a lot of doubts as to him ever being functional, he has come a long way and I have faith he will get a lot of his ability back with time. Still, life can change real fast and we take a lot for granted.

I hear you on this board too - it's a great place and there is a lot of humanity here.

 

[stimtron]

Create and maintain a free market for all non DEA controlled chemicals. If people or researchers want to buy them and do their own research or use for consumption then let then do it. Give them minimum regulations to confirm purity and lack of contaminants but that's it so it doesn't drive the price up 1,000%. We aren't living in a test tube some of the best research and discoveries became of individuals creating and exploring the effects of chemicals be it plant extracts, foods, or rcs. Just because it's not FDA should not mean it can't be allowed to be sold otc or with some type of disclosure form. Research takes very very long and is extremely expensive we could gain so much knowledge for people having free access to these things to determine both safety profile and effectiveness. The FDA can have a disclaimer on it and only sell to those over 21. It can be that easy.

 

[thebigt]

I like phenibut but haven't used it in a long time, but I am supreme bme is my favorite pre, dammit!!!

 

[stimtron]

@stimtron

Both are based on natural compounds I'm simply referring to the light modification between the 2 making no other comparison. - Then what is the point of the comparison though? Arsenic is a natural substance as well, would that be OK in your supplements?

People who have low GABA levels or GABA receptor dysfunction need an option for treating their conditions. Denying them a safe and effective treatment is immoral. Arsenic is present in trace amounts in food, sups, air, water, etc it's all about how much.

First off, you are saying that some people's only chance for life and function has anything to do with Phenibut and DMHA? Who has EVER died because they did NOT recieve a dose of Phenibut? Seriously? For real?

For phenibut and other nootropics that are approved as drugs to treat conditions yes. That's a no brainer. Same with Kratom.

Second, yes, we do ban a lot of things that are determined to be dangerous. Right and wrong. Life, unfortunately, doesn't have a lot of clear cut, easy answers. I don't agree with government oversight. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty darned conservative and believe individual rights should be held above government rights when possible. And with my beliefs come some incongruities that I have to accept. I don't view the FDA as a protection agency - it has A LOT of flaws. It makes a lot of mistakes. I can think of a lot of things it got wrong. Look at ephedrine. That drug had safety data behind it, and they pulled it - which is what the DMHA debate we are now having stems from. And as someone else said, if DMHA gets banned, they will just come up with something else. It's a tough call, but I don't see much redemption for phenibut and DMHA in this, even though I like the effects of phenibut, do see a narrow margin for it to be used effectively and won't call it crack. But even with that, if you're going to deny its addiction potential, you are just being foolish - and I mean that with all due respect. We are all foolish at times, I know I can't see what I can't see.

All irrelevant adults should have free access to whatever treatments works best for them. Anything can be abused but why would I care what idiots do with it? People eat tide pods now. Do we ban that? lol. You nor the FDA has anyone right to tell me what treatments I can or should take. They also don't care about what's most effective for me and my goals.

Third, careful what "condition" you claim these compounds treat, because in that very argument lies a big part of the legal reasoning to pull these ingredients from the market, if there is anything they actually treat. I mean, you can say anxiety for phenibut but...how good is it for long term anxiety when you take it for 2 days and you are already experiencing escalation?

I go by what the studies show is safe and effective. Anything else experienced by addicts who overdose has no bearing here.

Toys, foods, etc. all have regulations. And if someone were in a position of life and death - there are two things. One - I don't care what the law says if it comes down to saving my life. If I have to shoot someone to live, I am going to shoot someone. If I have to locate a scheduled substance and inject it into myself and risk jail to avoid death...the law isn't going to do much to deter me. At the same time, I don't want to be injecting false hope either.

Who said anything about false hope? The research on phenibut is pretty solid both safety and effectiveness. Even with kids as young as 1.

Umm, wasn't that part of my point? Even with all that safety research and warnings, etc. - when people SELF ADMINISTER this is what happens. And that's with something studies and tested in both lab and real life clinical situations. At least there is some proof of a benefit, some safety margin we can calculate, etc. You want to take something lacking all that experience and research, with a known escalation issue and stand behind it? I just don't get that.

LOL. If a kid buys aspirin and overdoses do we ban aspirin....no. Anyone who is not following doses used in studies is overdosing. Same with tianeptine another drug that can be safely used and effectively.

Phenibut was approved in several countries since the 60's it has over 300 publications. Not sure why you think it's somehow an unknown.

Maybe I am wrong. Show me some human safety studies. We can discuss that, it is possible that I'm wrong. Likely even

So you're not aware it's been studied heavily in Russia and gov approved there and several other countries by their FDA? While alot of it is in russian you can search pubmed or any medical database for studies. Use Anvifen, Fenibut, and Noofen as well as those are some common names used in studies. It's not like this is a new rc with no studies at all. **** man it's been studied in 1 year old babies. Yet so it's dangerous for us bodybuilders? That's a fucking joke. Yes not everyone can manage phenibut use but same goes with otc nsaids, fast food, sugar, coffee, alcohol, ete. Just because some people abuse it does not mean it does not have value and should be allowed for those who need it. Sadly no one will ever get it FDA approved so it's very important someone makes it available. Personally I don't want my health options limited solely due to it's patent wearing off and no US drug companies wanting to invest into something just because it helps some people when it's not profitable.

 

[stimtron]

Tolerance occurs with coffee do you want to ban that?

Tolerance occurs in a lot of things. So, let's use your analogy and follow the logic. Answer this for me - do you think people should be using phenibut like caffeine? What would happen if phenibut were added into 1-2 drinks a day (at effective doses), and people started taking phenibut Monster drinks on top of that, etc.?

I think phenibut should be used by people who have the conditions it treats with the doses clinically proven to be safe and effective. Hey if taking caf and phenibut helps you who am I to tell you what to do? Or you to me for that matter? My life my choice.

You know it wouldn't be good. Phenibut creates tolerance and yields escalation in days. If I take in 200 mg of caffeine (relatively high dose) a day for a week, I will still notice pretty much the same effects after a week. If I take 200 mg of phenibut (relatively small dose) for a week, I will notice that I need more pretty quickly to get the same effects. Even using Google you can find cases of people needing hits of phenibut almost hourly and taking up to 20 grams a day because they couldn't function without it, and the withdrawl was debilitating.

I have not see any studies clearing showing when and at what dose tolerance occurs plus it really seems to vary on the person. If you're worried just cycle it. What addicts do has no meaning to me. I can find alcoholics at my bar so should I stop drinking because they can't handle their ****? LOL no.

And again, I'm not all out guns blazing saying we should be banning things. Just that people are too quick to say things like phenibut or DMHA are safe and the FDA is evil. Those beliefs are extreme for this situation, IMO. Sure, if someone wants to use something like phenibut - they should have the ability to do it. I am not for illegality per se, but I'm also not for people on the internet putting people at risk by acting like something is completely "safe".

I would say it can be use safely by mature people taking studied doses and like anything this does not mean it can't be abused. But banning it or not you can't prevent people from abusing someone if they want to. But everyone else suffers because of it how is that fair? If a new FDA drug was found to be abused by 10% of users should all users be penalized and suffer not having a treatment that works for them? You don't punish everyone for the actions of a few or minority. We don't have a phenibut crisis in the US. We have an overregulation crisis.

If you don't know how your body is being affected by something you shouldn't take it. Likewise if you're overdosing it to get high.

First, you could say this about everyone who ever took a drug and wound up in the emergency room. How do you know how your body is going to be affected by something if you've never taken it?

If you lack awareness of how drugs effect you probably shouldn't be taking them is my point. Yes some you won't know until you try but you should take a low dose day 1 and slowly increase. Alot of addicts are just taking 1-10 grams off the bat. No wonder they have issues.

Second, look up at what you wrote above about Acetominophen; which gets to the point - self administration requires a margin of safety. Even with something that has a pretty wide margin of safety, like acetominophen, a lot of people get screwed. It's easy to say they shouldn't be taking it, but that's like saying, "If you're going to become an alcoholic you shouldn't start drinking." Well, who starts drinking and goes, "Yeah, I'm gonna be an alcoholic, let's do this!" Nobody. We don't know until the hammer hits us.

It also requires a measure of maturity and knowledge in what your doing. Aceto like phenibut has safety profiles and dose ranges but some people take risks and ignore them. If you're the type of person to go to a bar and for the first time order 10 shots that's on you. It does not have any bearing on how others act and neither should I be not allowed alcohol because of the immature actions of others.

If you abuse them I would be surprised if some tolerance didn't occur.

Do you know anyone who hasn't been able to function at work because of their use of tylenol, caffeine, or cough syrup? Some tolerance will occur, but it will be relatively little. How many people do you know that have a bottle of cough syrup habit per day habit?

Well yeah. Alot of people literally run on caf or other stimulants. It's America. Doesn't mean it's good for them in the long term but hey it's legal.

That is a pretty harsh stance, but with some tempering we would be in agreement. People should be allowed to do what they want, as long as they live with the consequences. But some people, as you say, have issues and addictive personalities that set them up for issues when they do exactly the same thing you and I can get away with. It doesn't make us smart, just lucky.

I don't disagree with you at all here. Yay common ground. If their actions effect other sure that's a problem. Let's hope those people get whatever help they need but banning phenibut isn't going to solve their problems.

I have a doctor friend who worked in a low income area for a long time. He told me the other day how hard it was dealing with people coming in with medical issues that he knew were due to underlying problems he really couldn't help with. Like, "Here's a prescription for nalaxone to help with your alcoholism." And then he knew she was poor and heading home to her abusive husband. Sometimes people just can't do any better.

It really does suck. I always find it distressing. Ironically phenibut and it's cousin baclofen are used in alcohol withdrawal. Definitely safer than alcohol on the liver. Choose your poison.

Anyway - I wanted to respond because you took the time as well. I appreciate the thought provoking convo, even if you are wrong (kidding with you). It's good to be able to have different views, sometimes it takes you down an unexpected path.

Challenging viewpoints sharpens out stances and encourages critical thinking. Something needed more often in the world.

 

[Jiigzz]

Create and maintain a free market for all non DEA controlled chemicals. If people or researchers want to buy them and do their own research or use for consumption then let then do it. Give them minimum regulations to confirm purity and lack of contaminants but that's it so it doesn't drive the price up 1,000%. We aren't living in a test tube some of the best research and discoveries became of individuals creating and exploring the effects of chemicals be it plant extracts, foods, or rcs. Just because it's not FDA should not mean it can't be allowed to be sold otc or with some type of disclosure form. Research takes very very long and is extremely expensive we could gain so much knowledge for people having free access to these things to determine both safety profile and effectiveness. The FDA can have a disclaimer on it and only sell to those over 21. It can be that easy.

What knowledge are you gaining exactly by using products with no safety data?

A person is very susceptible to placebo without objective measures. There's no way i could ever expect anyone to give me accurate info into a products efficacy without abstract data backing that. Arginine blew up in a similar fashion and look at it now.

Moreso, people on this forum PUSH for companies to include ingredients that actively have data backing them, but what you're effectively saying is that you want to buy a product based solely on what someone else tells you it will do, with no proof of what it actually does.

To add further, people go absolutely ape at companies when studies come out that expose particularly negative side effects for supplements they are using or when told the product is bunk and does nothing in humans. Its like we forget the stuff that supplement companies try sell to us that is bunk or toxic

 

[stimtron]

What knowledge are you gaining exactly by using products with no safety data?

A person is very susceptible to placebo without objective measures. There's no way i could ever expect anyone to give me accurate info into a products efficacy without abstract data backing that. Arginine blew up in a similar fashion and look at it now.

Moreso, people on this forum PUSH for companies to include ingredients that actively have data backing them, but what you're effectively saying is that you want to buy a product based solely on what someone else tells you it will do, with no proof of what it actually does.

To add further, people go absolutely ape at companies when studies come out that expose particularly negative side effects for supplements they are using or when told the product is bunk and does nothing in humans. Its like we forget the stuff that supplement companies try sell to us that is bunk or toxic

Many chemicals in food or FDA allowed herbs have no safety data do you want to ban them on that alone? I rather have options than not. Let's ban Big macs until mcdonalds proves it's safe for long term use.

There are degrees of safety data ranging from test tube to animals to humans. I see nothing wrong with using animals studies if no human ones are available. Kratom and CBD are good examples. They work even though early on there was no human studies on CBD. Families with kids with seizures went to Denver just to try this unapproved chemical because they tried the drugs with "safety data' and they either didn't work or were full of known side effects.

If you have an issue with a formula just don't buy or support it. I rather companies be innovative than just sell me 60 mg of vitamin C. Sure there are some products with little research only time will tell or yourself trying it if it's helping you. Trial and error. But phenibut has plenty of safety data and it should be available for those who benefit from it.

 

[ValiantThor08]

Many chemicals in food or FDA allowed herbs have no safety data do you want to ban them on that alone? I rather have options than not. Let's ban Big macs until mcdonalds proves it's safe for long term use.

There are degrees of safety data ranging from test tube to animals to humans. I see nothing wrong with using animals studies if no human ones are available. Kratom and CBD are good examples. They work even though early on there was no human studies on CBD. Families with kids with seizures went to Denver just to try this unapproved chemical because they tried the drugs with "safety data' and they either didn't work or were full of known side effects.

If you have an issue with a formula just don't buy or support it. I rather companies be innovative than just sell me 60 mg of vitamin C. Sure there are some products with little research only time will tell or yourself trying it if it's helping you. Trial and error. But phenibut has plenty of safety data and it should be available for those who benefit from it.

Glyphosate has been in the new lately shown to cause cancer, and is many food products. The things the FDA does allow, that slow kills men is astounding.

 

[stimtron]

Glyphosate has been in the new lately shown to cause cancer, and is many food products. The things the FDA does allow, that slow kills men is astounding.

Great example. It was approved for safe use and only years later was it disproved as safe which suggests not only an issue with the studies but also the approval process and questions the integrity of the FDA.

Sure many chemicals may cause an issue down the line with unknown side effects but most people take them because there is some basis for how it may help them with whatever goal they have. Even with FDA approved drugs not all the side effects are known some for decades like over the counters nsaids that recently had black box warnings added on stating that it can kill you. FDA approval process is one idea for how to determine if a drug is safe or effective but it's not perfect or even accurate. Risks are always involved when you do or don't do just about anything but nothing ventured nothing gained. It should be your choice since it's your life.

 

[Jiigzz]

Many chemicals in food or FDA allowed herbs have no safety data do you want to ban them on that alone? I rather have options than not. Let's ban Big macs until mcdonalds proves it's safe for long term use.

There are degrees of safety data ranging from test tube to animals to humans. I see nothing wrong with using animals studies if no human ones are available. Kratom and CBD are good examples. They work even though early on there was no human studies on CBD. Families with kids with seizures went to Denver just to try this unapproved chemical because they tried the drugs with "safety data' and they either didn't work or were full of known side effects.

If you have an issue with a formula just don't buy or support it. I rather companies be innovative than just sell me 60 mg of vitamin C. Sure there are some products with little research only time will tell or yourself trying it if it's helping you. Trial and error. But phenibut has plenty of safety data and it should be available for those who benefit from it.

You're trolling, right?

Mcdonalds dont have to "prove" that big macs are safe. Big macs arent a drug - they are comprised of food elements. The logic you are apply is astounding.

Which food chemicals dont have safety data? You cant base an argument on a broad sweeping claim, you have to provide examples. If your big mac argument is all you've got, then you need to think long and hard about the comparison you are implying exists.

What safety data in phenibut exists? You posted articles earlier which aleks already explained to you arent safety studies. Which other ones are you talking about?

 

[Jiigzz]

Glyphosate has been in the new lately shown to cause cancer, and is many food products. The things the FDA does allow, that slow kills men is astounding.

The weedkiller? Is that meant to be ingested?

 

[Jiigzz]

Great example. It was approved for safe use and only years later was it disproved as safe which suggests not only an issue with the studies but also the approval process and questions the integrity of the FDA.

Sure many chemicals may cause an issue down the line with unknown side effects but most people take them because there is some basis for how it may help them with whatever goal they have. Even with FDA approved drugs not all the side effects are known some for decades like over the counters nsaids that recently had black box warnings added on stating that it can kill you. FDA approval process is one idea for how to determine if a drug is safe or effective but it's not perfect or even accurate. Risks are always involved when you do or don't do just about anything but nothing ventured nothing gained. It should be your choice since it's your life.

Glycosphate has 800 safety studies and it hasnt been 'proven' to cause cancer. 1 man is claiming it is.

I claim that your arguments are giving me cancer.

 

[ValiantThor08]

The weedkiller? Is that meant to be ingested?

I happens to be on a lot of food products, from the farm, and no it is not supposed to be ingested, but it appears the assumption was that the minimal glyphosate on food products would not cause harm. Well lately people that just use glyphosate to kill weeds have come down with terminal cancer and have been winning in the courts.

 

[ValiantThor08]

Blog

From diet and sleep to recipes and coffee-making-tips, you'll find all the info you need to be your best self on the Bulletproof Blog.

blog.bulletproof.com

 

[Jiigzz]

I happens to be on a lot of food products, from the farm, and no it is not supposed to be ingested, but it appears the assumption was that the minimal glyphosate on food products would not cause harm. Well lately people that just use glyphosate to kill weeds have come down with terminal cancer and have been winning in the courts.

Wait, so you are saying that the people winning in court over its use in weed killing products somehow implys that food products with it are unsafe, despite noone claiming that at all?

If people drown in an ocean, should i stop drinking water?

 

[ValiantThor08]

Wait, so you are saying that the people winning in court over its use in weed killing products somehow implys that food products with it are unsafe, despite noone claiming that at all?

If people drown in an ocean, should i stop drinking water?

It is not safe in food products. It should not be in food products.

 

[Jiigzz]

It is not safe in food products. It should not be in food products.

Where does it say that?

 

[ValiantThor08]

Glyphosate is being shown to be carcinogenic through external use of it. It was be sound reasoning to assume it is not safe to ingest.

 

[Jiigzz]

Glyphosate is being shown to be carcinogenic through external use of it. It was be sound reasoning to assume it is not safe to ingest.View attachment 182042

Do you know the saying "the dose makes the poison"?

If that's your logic, you should avoid the following:

Tuna or fish that contain heavy metals

Apples - due to cyanide presence and methanol (actually a lot of fruits)

Bacon, or other shaved meats - due to nitrosamines

Water - risk of hyponaetremia

If your stance on reasonable assumption is based on years and years of weedkiller use being akin to eating token amounts of glucosphate in foods, then this debate is over. Im positive this is a troll.

 

[ValiantThor08]

Do you know the saying "the dose makes the poison"?

If that's your logic, you should avoid the following:

Tuna or fish that contain heavy metals

Apples - due to cyanide presence and methanol (actually a lot of fruits)

Bacon, or other shaved meats - due to nitrosamines

Water - risk of hyponaetremia

If your stance on reasonable assumption is based on years and years of weedkiller use being akin to eating token amounts of glucosphate in foods, then this debate is over. Im positive this is a troll.

Yeah. There is not a glyphosate tree. I understand that certain things in nature can be toxic at certain doses. It does not seem wise, intelligent to consume glyphosate.

 

[Jiigzz]

Yeah. There is not a glyphosate tree. I understand that certain things in nature can be toxic at certain doses. It does not seem wise, intelligent to consume glyphosate.

Theres not a cyanide tree either, but its in apples.

Whats your point? Lol

 

[ValiantThor08]

Men didnt make apples. Men made glyphosate.

 

[Jiigzz]

Men didnt make apples. Men made glyphosate.

I still stand by the dose makes the poison argument.

Natural things can still kill you just as dead as synthetic things, so im not overly sure why that matters.

 

[Jiigzz]

Men didnt make apples. Men made glyphosate.

I still stand by the dose makes the poison argument.

Natural things can still kill you just as dead as synthetic things, so im not overly sure why that matters.

But regardless, noone is saying that glycosphate should be intentionally ingested. Yes, it likely has residue on food products, but thays different to intentional ingestion.

 

[stimtron]

You're trolling, right?

Mcdonalds dont have to "prove" that big macs are safe. Big macs arent a drug - they are comprised of food elements. The logic you are apply is astounding.

Which food chemicals dont have safety data? You cant base an argument on a broad sweeping claim, you have to provide examples. If your big mac argument is all you've got, then you need to think long and hard about the comparison you are implying exists.

What safety data in phenibut exists? You posted articles earlier which aleks already explained to you arent safety studies. Which other ones are you talking about?

Certain consumptions of foods can increase your risk of heart attack and death. Like cooked meats. Any meal containing high levels of saturated fats and carbs taken regularly could kill you. You want safety data on a given chemical at a set dose there's no difference in asking the same for a Big Mac which is just chemicals all the same. Where's the line between selling something safe vs unsafe? Just because something may take longer to kill you doesn't mean it's any safer. Is high salt intake safe? No. High sugar? No. Yet we don't see the gov regulating these factors for death and health conditions.


It's been gov approved as a drug in several countries decades ago by their versions of their FDA. Check out any study on pubmed. I posted a handful on 1 year old babies, kids, and teens earlier in the thread. Safe enough for babies or teens for 2 months of daily use but not anyone...that makes no sense.

The last study published was on CFS after 6 weeks of 500 mg 2x daily which guess what looked at safety and effectiveness.

"During the study, no serious desirable phenomena in any of the patients included to study. Also during the observation period in the group there were no patients who additionally received noofen there have been cases of weighting the flow of the main diseases requiring a change in therapy. Among patients receiving only standard therapy in 4 (20%) correction of the main diseases (increased antihypertensive therapy). In the side effects have been reported 4 (12%) patients: 1 (3%) had drowsiness, 2 (6%) nausea occurred in the initial period of treatment, 1 (3%) patient complained of increased vertigo. All side effects were transient (most cases no more than 2 days), regressed independently and did not require the cancellation or dose adjustment of the study blown drug."

See it can be taken for 6 weeks and 1 gram a day total and have no serious side effects or even require a change in dose. Honesty I feel like the horrible stories are just that. People really need to look at what the actual research says than freak out after seeing someone take 10 grams and talk about how fucked up they got and think it can't be safely used or is even dangerous at lower doses. I get some people don't have self control but don't blame the substance blame the user.

 

[stimtron]

Glycosphate has 800 safety studies and it hasnt been 'proven' to cause cancer. 1 man is claiming it is.

I claim that your arguments are giving me cancer.

Him and WHO.

The World Health Organization's (WHO) cancer agency is firmly defending its finding that a widely used herbicide is "probably carcinogenic" despite reports cited by key House lawmakers.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/who-rebuts-house-committee-criticisms-about-glyphosate-cancer-warning

 

[Jiigzz]

Certain consumptions of foods can increase your risk of heart attack and death. Like cooked meats. Any meal containing high levels of saturated fats and carbs taken regularly could kill you. You want safety data on a given chemical at a set dose there's no difference in asking the same for a Big Mac which is just chemicals all the same. Where's the line between selling something safe vs unsafe? Just because something may take longer to kill you doesn't mean it's any safer. Is high salt intake safe? No. High sugar? No. Yet we don't see the gov regulating these factors for death and health conditions.


It's been gov approved as a drug in several countries decades ago by their versions of their FDA. Check out any study on pubmed. I posted a handful on 1 year old babies, kids, and teens earlier in the thread. Safe enough for babies or teens for 2 months of daily use but not anyone...that makes no sense.

The last study published was on CFS after 6 weeks of 500 mg 2x daily which guess what looked at safety and effectiveness.

"During the study, no serious desirable phenomena in any of the patients included to study. Also during the observation period in the group there were no patients who additionally received noofen there have been cases of weighting the flow of the main diseases requiring a change in therapy. Among patients receiving only standard therapy in 4 (20%) correction of the main diseases (increased antihypertensive therapy). In the side effects have been reported 4 (12%) patients: 1 (3%) had drowsiness, 2 (6%) nausea occurred in the initial period of treatment, 1 (3%) patient complained of increased vertigo. All side effects were transient (most cases no more than 2 days), regressed independently and did not require the cancellation or dose adjustment of the study blown drug."

See it can be taken for 6 weeks and 1 gram a day toal and have no serious side effects or even require a change in dose. Honesty I feel like the horrible stories are just that. People really need to look at what the actual research says than freak out after seeing someone take 10 grams and talk about how fucked up they got and think it can't be safely used or is even dangerous at lower doses.

What are you talking about lol. Big mac isnt a drug, it is a NAME for a food product that is a combination of a bun, a meat patty, lettuce, cheese and sauce.

It doesn't need safety data because it is a food, not something intended to supplement the diet or cure any illness/disease.

Can you post a link to the study please?

 

[Jiigzz]

Him and WHO.

The World Health Organization's (WHO) cancer agency is firmly defending its finding that a widely used herbicide is "probably carcinogenic" despite reports cited by key House lawmakers.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/who-rebuts-house-committee-criticisms-about-glyphosate-cancer-warning

Probably carcinogenic. Right. Probably. Last i checked herbicides weren't food, but maybe they are where you're from

 

[stimtron]

Probably carcinogenic. Right. Probably. Last i checked herbicides weren't food, but maybe they are where you're from

Do you really want to wait to find out for sure? Do you want probably get cancer or avoid it and just not get cancer...you know due to it.

Oh it's in food. FDA confirmed it.

https://investigatemidwest.org/2018/10/09/fda-finds-glyphosate-in-food-samples-in-its-first-ever-test-for-the-herbicide/


Trans fats were nasty I never consumed them but so many people went all in why because it was FDA approved even though it came out it increased risk of heart attacks and death far more than other fats. Enough so most companies have removed it from the marketplace entirely and the FDA banned it just last year. On the market for decades killing people and contributing to heart disease by people thinking it's FDA approved and food so it's safe. Don't assume the FDA is right or wrong they make mistakes and are far from infaillible.

Science is constantly changing and what people who are interested in health should be reviewing to keep up to date with both good and bad findings.

 

[Jiigzz]

Do you really want to wait to find out for sure? Do you want probably get cancer or avoid it and just not get cancer...you know due to it. Trans fats were nasty I never consumed them but so many people went all in why because it was FDA approved even though it came out it increased risk of heart attacks and death far more than other fats. Enough so most companies have removed it from the marketplace entirely and the FDA banned it just last year. On the market for decades killing people and contributing to heart disease by people thinking it's FDA approved and food so it's safe. Don't assume the FDA is right or wrong they make mistakes and are far from infaillible. Science is constantly changing and what people who are interested in health should be reviewing to keep up to date with both good and bad findings.

I dont drink roundup from the can. Like i said, it's not a food. I also dont apply it topically, like what they identify the risk to actually be from.

Somehow both you and Thor have taken the roundup thing so far out of context that you are making it out like small doses is the main complaint from the lawsuits. It isnt. Its the years of exposure to those who routinely use it as a part of their job that is being disputed. But somehow you dont seem to understand that.

What concerns me even more is that this issue is of such a big concern to you, yet you want the ability to consume supplements that have no safety data whatsoever.

How does that even work? You want to be guinea pigs to things that could do much more damage, but afraid of something that might cause cancer if you're exposed to it for long enough? Like, what??

Your arguments contradict the explanation so much so that the only thing i can draw from this is: the fda is wrong no matter what and whenever theyre involved i will get mad.

 

[Jiigzz]

Do you really want to wait to find out for sure? Do you want probably get cancer or avoid it and just not get cancer...you know due to it.

Oh it's in food. FDA confirmed it.

https://investigatemidwest.org/2018/10/09/fda-finds-glyphosate-in-food-samples-in-its-first-ever-test-for-the-herbicide/


Trans fats were nasty I never consumed them but so many people went all in why because it was FDA approved even though it came out it increased risk of heart attacks and death far more than other fats. Enough so most companies have removed it from the marketplace entirely and the FDA banned it just last year. On the market for decades killing people and contributing to heart disease by people thinking it's FDA approved and food so it's safe. Don't assume the FDA is right or wrong they make mistakes and are far from infaillible.

Science is constantly changing and what people who are interested in health should be reviewing to keep up to date with both good and bad findings.

In the same article you posted: "all results show levels are of no concern to public health, according to the report".

So are yoh agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? Because the very source you posted states that explicitly.

 

[stimtron]

In the same article you posted: "all results show levels are of no concern to public health, according to the report".

So are yoh agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? Because the very source you posted states that explicitly.

More than meets the eye than a quick read of one article but I'm using this article to confirm it is present in food. Now let's look closer.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/30/fda-weedkiller-glyphosate-in-food-internal-emails


"Along with glyphosate, the agency has been trying to measure residues of the herbicides 2,4-D and dicamba because of projected increased use of these weedkillers on new genetically engineered crops. The FDA spokesman said that the agency has “expanded capacity” for testing foods for those herbicides this year.

Other findings detailed in the FDA documents show that in 2016 Chamkasem found glyphosate in numerous samples of honey. Chamkasem also found glyphosate in oatmeal products. The FDA temporarily suspended testing after those findings, and Chamkasem’s lab was “reassigned to other programs”, the FDA documents show. The FDA has said those tests were not part of its official glyphosate residue assignment."

So the FDA just started testing foods for this herbicide seems like they should have been doing it after it was approved back in 1974. Then one FDA official actually started doing testing and posting findings until his superiors "reassigned him". How does that not sound shady to you? In one sample he found levels above the safe limit. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Over-the-tolerance-finding-in-corn.pdf


"Pesticide exposure through diet is considered a potential health risk. Regulators, Monsanto and agrochemical industry interests say pesticide residues in food are not harmful if they are under legal limits. But many scientists dispute that, saying prolonged dietary exposure to combinations of pesticides can be harmful.

Toxicologist Linda Birnbaum, who is director of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), said that current regulatory analysis of pesticide dangers does not account for low levels of dietary exposures.

“Even with low levels of pesticides, we’re exposed to so many and we don’t count the fact that we have cumulative exposures,” Birnbaum said.

The US Department of Agriculture was to start its own testing of foods for glyphosate residues in 2017 but dropped the plan. The lack of government residue data comes as Monsanto attempts to bar evidence about glyphosate food residues from being introduced in court where the company is fighting off allegations its Roundup products cause cancer."

Even the USDA stopped it's planned to test for it. I see no good reason not for gov agencies to test our food supply for chemicals. Likely some pressure from Monsanto.

 

[HIT4ME]

This thread moves fast. One thing I am finding ironic is the people who are up in arms about the FDA throwing out weed killer.

So, the FDA shouldn't legislate because when they don't do their job things go wrong...huh?

You can't be against them doing something and then point out a bad outcome from them NOT doing it as your defense.

Again, not for the FDA, but that argument is illigical yo start with.

 

[ValiantThor08]

This thread moves fast. One thing I am finding ironic is the people who are up in arms about the FDA throwing out weed killer.

So, the FDA shouldn't legislate because when they don't do their job things go wrong...huh?

You can't be against them doing something and then point out a bad outcome from them NOT doing it as your defense.

Again, not for the FDA, but that argument is illigical yo start with.

I think it is more of being upset with their inconsistencies due to conceived financial incentives.

 

[stimtron]

This thread moves fast. One thing I am finding ironic is the people who are up in arms about the FDA throwing out weed killer.

So, the FDA shouldn't legislate because when they don't do their job things go wrong...huh?

You can't be against them doing something and then point out a bad outcome from them NOT doing it as your defense.

Again, not for the FDA, but that argument is illigical yo start with.

Apples and oranges between an FDA approved herbicide found to likely cause cancer and a supplement some people happen to be abusing that is otherwise safe when used as directed. One ahs clear health benefits and there's medical need for the other is just an unsafe chemical that benefits no one in any way.

 

[Jiigzz]

Apples and oranges between an FDA approved herbicide found to likely cause cancer and a supplement some people happen to be abusing that is otherwise safe when used as directed. One ahs clear health benefits and there's medical need for the other is just an unsafe chemical that benefits no one in any way.

You havent proved anything as safe.

Thats the issue here. You keep saying it is safe, but yet have very limited data actually assessing that.

Glycosphate has over 800 safety studies, and you cant even find 1 study in phenibut that proves long term safety.

You're way out of your depth here.

 

[Jiigzz]

More than meets the eye than a quick read of one article but I'm using this article to confirm it is present in food. Now let's look closer.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/30/fda-weedkiller-glyphosate-in-food-internal-emails


"Along with glyphosate, the agency has been trying to measure residues of the herbicides 2,4-D and dicamba because of projected increased use of these weedkillers on new genetically engineered crops. The FDA spokesman said that the agency has “expanded capacity” for testing foods for those herbicides this year.

Other findings detailed in the FDA documents show that in 2016 Chamkasem found glyphosate in numerous samples of honey. Chamkasem also found glyphosate in oatmeal products. The FDA temporarily suspended testing after those findings, and Chamkasem’s lab was “reassigned to other programs”, the FDA documents show. The FDA has said those tests were not part of its official glyphosate residue assignment."

So the FDA just started testing foods for this herbicide seems like they should have been doing it after it was approved back in 1974. Then one FDA official actually started doing testing and posting findings until his superiors "reassigned him". How does that not sound shady to you? In one sample he found levels above the safe limit. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Over-the-tolerance-finding-in-corn.pdf


"Pesticide exposure through diet is considered a potential health risk. Regulators, Monsanto and agrochemical industry interests say pesticide residues in food are not harmful if they are under legal limits. But many scientists dispute that, saying prolonged dietary exposure to combinations of pesticides can be harmful.

Toxicologist Linda Birnbaum, who is director of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), said that current regulatory analysis of pesticide dangers does not account for low levels of dietary exposures.

“Even with low levels of pesticides, we’re exposed to so many and we don’t count the fact that we have cumulative exposures,” Birnbaum said.

The US Department of Agriculture was to start its own testing of foods for glyphosate residues in 2017 but dropped the plan. The lack of government residue data comes as Monsanto attempts to bar evidence about glyphosate food residues from being introduced in court where the company is fighting off allegations its Roundup products cause cancer."

Even the USDA stopped it's planned to test for it. I see no good reason not for gov agencies to test our food supply for chemicals. Likely some pressure from Monsanto.

Shock horror, a pesticide used on food is found on food!

And of the millions of crops it is used on, there is 1 report of it being over safe amounts.

With this carry on, you mustnt eat any food.

I just read some of the links you posted: safe tolerence levels established at 20ppm in EU ans 30ppm in US, and they found oats had, wait for it, a tested amount of 1.56ppm, more than 15x UNDER the tolerence level and you are complaining about that?

And that link where it is "over" is at 6ppm, which is 5x less than tolerance levels.

 

[HIT4ME]

I think it is more of being upset with their inconsistencies due to conceived financial incentives.

I can understand that, but it's really a different argument. This debate has been mostly centered around the fact the the FDA is "evil" and shouldn't be banning anything.

And then the counter comes up that something that they failed to ban, or approved, has harmed people. Which implies their job is critical and they need to do it better.

As far as them being inconsistent and having alterior motives, I can back that. They could be better and should be. But on the same hand, they were never intended to protect consumers and were designed to build consumer confidence. At least if you're into Howard Zinn.

Apples and oranges between an FDA approved herbicide found to likely cause cancer and a supplement some people happen to be abusing that is otherwise safe when used as directed. One ahs clear health benefits and there's medical need for the other is just an unsafe chemical that benefits no one in any way.

I agree - it is apples and oranges. It's completely unrelated. The FDA didn't approve the herbicide for human consumption, but for use to kill insects (which pose other health threats in the food supply). And the function of the product has a clear health benefit - but the side effects are starting to be questioned. And the "non-FDA" crowd is somehow trying to twist this in their favor? It is basically the argument against them approving or allowing Phenibut or DMHA. Look at all that went wrong when they approved something with a defined effect and safety data behind it - people got cancer.

Now DMHA is on the table and they should repeat that mistake?

But that's still assuming that DMHA really has any purpose to begin with, beyond the lack of safety studies.

I have a lot to respond to in your quote...but I don't have the time at the moment and this thread got way ahead. I disagree that phenibut has any KNOWN medicinal claim where its restriction would result in suffering. From what I can tell, doctors have tried and true drugs with research and safety profiles that will accomplish most any task phenibut has been proposed for. Having said that, "known" is the big factor. Maybe it does something we don't know about - but that's the issue. We don't know. You may believe in the ingredient, but I doubt you know for certain.

But, maybe you've done a bunch of research and I don't know. I could be the ignorant one here. I've been in positions where i knew a ton about an ingredient and people thought I was a crackpot for a long time before they realized there was evidence they weren't aware of. I just don't see it.

 

[stimtron]

You havent proved anything as safe.

Thats the issue here. You keep saying it is safe, but yet have very limited data actually assessing that.

Glycosphate has over 800 safety studies, and you cant even find 1 study in phenibut that proves long term safety.

You're way out of your depth here.

You're on the wrong side of history ignoring the clear red flags with it.

Most drugs aren't studied for long term effects it's partly why just in the past decade nsaids have been linked to higher risk of death. But 2 months of phenibut use showed no concerning side effects.

 

[ValiantThor08]

A difference is most people do not use, or have interest in DMHA, but everyone eats. I guess I am not for the demolishing of the FDA, just refining, and optimizing them and their purpose.

 

[stimtron]

I have a lot to respond to in your quote...but I don't have the time at the moment and this thread got way ahead. I disagree that phenibut has any KNOWN medicinal claim where its restriction would result in suffering. From what I can tell, doctors have tried and true drugs with research and safety profiles that will accomplish most any task phenibut has been proposed for. Having said that, "known" is the big factor. Maybe it does something we don't know about - but that's the issue. We don't know. You may believe in the ingredient, but I doubt you know for certain.

But, maybe you've done a bunch of research and I don't know. I could be the ignorant one here. I've been in positions where i knew a ton about an ingredient and people thought I was a crackpot for a long time before they realized there was evidence they weren't aware of. I just don't see it.

Same as kratom or CBD (prior to FDA approval) both are pain killers that helps when other options failed due to side effects or lack of accessible. It can be very hard for those in pain to get or even afford proper pain relief. Kratom, CBD, Phenibut gives people another option.

Baclofen is very similar to phenibut but lacks much of it's nootropic properties and it not studied in ADHD or other conditions like phenibut is. Phenibut is a known drug and it's been on the pharmacy market for decades I don't get how people see it as an rc or something.

 

[thebigt]

I can understand that, but it's really a different argument. This debate has been mostly centered around the fact the the FDA is "evil" and shouldn't be banning anything.

And then the counter comes up that something that they failed to ban, or approved, has harmed people. Which implies their job is critical and they need to do it better.

As far as them being inconsistent and having alterior motives, I can back that. They could be better and should be. But on the same hand, they were never intended to protect consumers and were designed to build consumer confidence. At least if you're into Howard Zinn.



I agree - it is apples and oranges. It's completely unrelated. The FDA didn't approve the herbicide for human consumption, but for use to kill insects (which pose other health threats in the food supply). And the function of the product has a clear health benefit - but the side effects are starting to be questioned. And the "non-FDA" crowd is somehow trying to twist this in their favor? It is basically the argument against them approving or allowing Phenibut or DMHA. Look at all that went wrong when they approved something with a defined effect and safety data behind it - people got cancer.

Now DMHA is on the table and they should repeat that mistake?

But that's still assuming that DMHA really has any purpose to begin with, beyond the lack of safety studies.

I have a lot to respond to in your quote...but I don't have the time at the moment and this thread got way ahead. I disagree that phenibut has any KNOWN medicinal claim where its restriction would result in suffering. From what I can tell, doctors have tried and true drugs with research and safety profiles that will accomplish most any task phenibut has been proposed for. Having said that, "known" is the big factor. Maybe it does something we don't know about - but that's the issue. We don't know. You may believe in the ingredient, but I doubt you know for certain.

But, maybe you've done a bunch of research and I don't know. I could be the ignorant one here. I've been in positions where i knew a ton about an ingredient and people thought I was a crackpot for a long time before they realized there was evidence they weren't aware of. I just don't see it.

minor correction

herbicide=weeds
pesticide=insects

Monsanto made gmo seeds roundup resistant so that farmers could spray fields with roundup without killing crops. some of the food you are eating has been sprayed with roundup. the question i have is if roundup sprayed on crops permeates the outer layer[skin] of crops?

 

[Jiigzz]

You're on the wrong side of history ignoring the clear red flags with it.

Most drugs aren't studied for long term effects it's partly why just in the past decade nsaids have been linked to higher risk of death. But 2 months of phenibut use showed no concerning side effects.

You're joking right? Do you even know the process for getting drug approval and the requirement for long term safety studies?

If you think 2 months of use that doesnt test for markers of safety outside of user reports constitutes a long term study on safety, you literally have no idea what you are talking about.

And this is a problem.

The data on Nsaids is far more extensive than phenibut. You have 2 months of extremely minimal sides reporting compared to decades of nsaid research and you think that is comparable?

 

[Jiigzz]

minor correction

herbicide=weeds
pesticide=insects

Monsanto made gmo seeds roundup resistant so that farmers could spray fields with roundup without killing crops. some of the food you are eating has been sprayed with roundup. the question i have is if roundup sprayed on crops permeates the outer layer[skin] of crops?

They test for that and have safety allowances as referenced above. 30ppm is considered the maximum reference range for glycosphate occurence, with most crops being well under that safe point.

The issue here is that people see that something could be dangerous at high occurences yet apply that to mean it is dangerous at any dose.

If i injected 4g of mercury and subsequently died, is the logical assumption that any level of mercury ingestion dangerous? No it isnt. The dose makes the poison.

 

[Jiigzz]

You're on the wrong side of history ignoring the clear red flags with it.

Most drugs aren't studied for long term effects it's partly why just in the past decade nsaids have been linked to higher risk of death. But 2 months of phenibut use showed no concerning side effects.

Here are examples of meta analyses of safety studies for some nsaids - you can search them by their titles:


Forty years of ibuprofen use. (40 years of safety data and post marketing reporting vs a 2 month phenibut study whose purpose isnt enough to establish a safety profile)

A large simple clinical trial prototype for assessment of OTC drug effects using patient-reported data.

Comparative tolerability of paracetamol, aspirin and ibuprofen for short-term analgesia in patients with musculoskeletal conditions: results in 4291 patients.


Cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: network meta-analysis

Gastrointestinal safety of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients on warfarin

Focus on the safety of ibuprofen at the analgesic-antipyretic dose].

Ibuprofen and gastrointestinal safety: a dose-duration-dependent phenomenon.

Gastrointestinal safety and tolerance of ibuprofen at maximum over-the-counter dose.

This is just a very small, select few of the mountains of research on nsaid use. Combined, the numbers of people assessed would be in the millions.

What you must also account for is that people abuse nsaids by using them long term - but we know the side effects because of post marketing studies assessing patients over decades of use. The longer a drug has been available, the wider the breadth of data in the subject.

And yet somehow you think a small phenibut study which doesn't even assess its safety profile deems phenibut safer than nsaids.


Spontaneous reporting to drug surveillance systems suggests one adverse reaction for every 5 million (UK) to 25 million (USA) 200 mg tablets sold, with one reported fatality for 0.6 to 23 billion tablets sold. During clinical and post-marketing studies, the frequency of adverse events was similar to that found with placebo or paracetamol. In a meta-analysis involving 46000 patients, the incidence of digestive events was 5 per cent, with 0.02 per cent upper GI bleeds. A prospective trial in 84000 children reported 0.007 per cent GI bleeds

 

[Aleksandar37]

I think it is more of being upset with their inconsistencies due to conceived financial incentives.

How many times do I have to show everybody that you have absolutely zero idea what the hell you are talking about? "Conceived financial incentives"? You are free to be upset all you want about things that are not reality, but stop claiming they are true. Where exactly is your proof? An article on bulletproof's webpage says that something is bad when those morons make money off of people who have zero knowledge of basic science and get do their "research" by listening to a Joe Rogan podcast? You didn't even know how the approval process works, so how the hell are you still going on about corruption in it?

 

[Aleksandar37]

You're on the wrong side of history ignoring the clear red flags with it.

Most drugs aren't studied for long term effects it's partly why just in the past decade nsaids have been linked to higher risk of death. But 2 months of phenibut use showed no concerning side effects.

This is a complete lie. You've had several chances now that I gave you a pass on just being ignorant, but now you're straight up lying and ignoring facts. ALL approved drugs are studied for long term effects! First, drugs don't get approved based on one clinical trial. Phase I is safety, Phase II is efficacy, Phase III is both and tends to be blinded, much larger, and last for several years. If at any point the drug fails, it typically doesn't go on to the next part and is abandoned. And after all of that, even after the drug is approved, there is phase IV or post-marketing surveillance that tracks any adverse events associated with a drug for the life of the drug.

Phenibut has not been subjected to a safety trial. No matter how many times you try to wish it into existence, it never happened.

 

[Wobmarvel]

These conversations are very interesting but I honestly believe they overcomplicate everything. If phenibut was on supermarket shelves being advertised on TV as an amazing health supplement then the FDA would have to control it simply because brainless morons would jump on it and believe everything they read or watch.

Not everyone has the common sense to try something, see how they feel and use with caution. I have used phenibut for years and will continue to do so until the decision is made for me that I can no longer get hold of it.

Will I suffer from it further down the line? Maybe. If I develop cancer will the doctor know if it's from phenibut, eating processed foods, too much red meat, passive smoke, living in a high emision city, salt, fat, junk food, sunlight, mobile phone use, other supplements. Obviously if I develop skin cancer likelyhood is it's not from ingesting something. My point is if I get sick in 5 or 10 years time I'm not blaming the FDA. Stick a label on it saying it may cause cancer then let the people decide for themselves. Let the FDA concentrate on policing those who advertise untested products as miracle cures or the best thing for your health.