FDA issues warning letters regarding DMHA and phenibut

Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
I think a rating system would be ideal based on what we know of any given chemical.

Safety data, known issues, possible risks based on it's mode of action, and limitations.

Any chemical either has studies in cells (outside the body to see how it affects cell structure so things like cancer, mito function, antioxidant etc) which just gives us an idea of it may do, animal studies which gives an idea of safety and effectiveness, and human studies which is gold standard but very expensive.

There's a ton of supplements with just animals studies which I think makes up half of the supplements out there. I don't see this as a bad thing offhand just that no ones invested into it more. It may or may not have the same effects in humans but it's available for me to try and see what if anything it does. I like this system since it gives me 1,000's of options for whatever health goal I have conventional medicine has nothing for.

Acetylcarnosine eye drops I've been using for years now as supplement and my vision is much clearer and sharper. It's not an fda approved drug but a supplement sold for aging eyes. They have done a handful of studies but given nothing to the FDA. Could the studies have been faked maybe? (although i think a few other researchers saw similar results) but I read the claims looked at the studies and decided it was worth a try. Am i risking my health? Yes but at a chance of a gain which in my case paid. I enhanced myself which I think is the goal of many here. To make ourselves better, stronger, faster, just better for as long as we can. It's why I'm here.
Cell studies and animal studies are all well and good, as long as we acknowledge their shortfalls when attempting to apply them to humans. They often serve as a basis for further inquiry which makes them interesting. And you're right, most ingredients at the very least have some form of animal study to lean on.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I think putting the burden on the consumer only for the safety of a supplement is pretty much an admission that you have no regard for safety, as long as you get yours. And to state that we are expecting supplement companies to do too much isn't true at all. We expect MUCH more from other industries.

I mean, would you stand for this kind of behavior from a drug company? I mean, that's what they did with opioids and they should be skewered for it.

I do a lot of work with some very large food companies who deal with frozen products, which has a lot of food safety regulations. Some of these regulations would make your head spin. One of the standards has inspectors who can show up randomly, unannounced, and swab the loading docks to see how much dirt is embedded in the cement floor - of the LOADING DOCK, where food never touches (it'd be on pallets).

And most of the companies have their own standards they want to apply, like constant temperature monitoring of ice cream - if it goes up even a few degrees it ruins the product and the customer experience and hurts their brand.

And even still, look at all the issues we have with food safety and people getting sick from bad lettuce and such.

I like being able to experiment with different things, and I hate to see things go - but I also think a lot of people think they know a lot more than they actually know. Even on this board you have some REALLY smart people who make my head spin, and others who think they know everything and don't even know about basics like the TCA cycle, much less understand it (I don't fully understand it) - and usually those people are the ones who act like they know it all.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I do a lot of work with some very large food companies who deal with frozen products, which has a lot of food safety regulations. Some of these regulations would make your head spin. One of the standards has inspectors who can show up randomly, unannounced, and swab the loading docks to see how much dirt is embedded in the cement floor - of the LOADING DOCK, where food never touches (it'd be on pallets).
I did QA microbiology for a pharma company as my first job out of undergrad. We had to test surfaces and air on production lines every time they ran since it was done in a sterile environment. We'd then have to test a random sample of the product itself for every lot of drug that was made. Even before it reached the production line, we had to test the room and equipment that made the drug up and take random water samples from all over the plant. And we constantly had FDA inspections, both planned and unannounced.
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I really don't understand the new setup of the forum. we got posts from april 16th showing up on the last page on the 23rd.

Help me I'm old and this makes no sense.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
LOL I told you..its the up vote and down vote. Up vote gets moved up in the order, down vote get moved down. If you don't want it, top of thread and click Sort By Date.
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
LOL I told you..its the up vote and down vote. Up vote gets moved up in the order, down vote get moved down. If you don't want it, top of thread and click Sort By Date.
OK that makes sense to have that option...awesome I love it.

I just feel like having seperate pages and it showing in posts as opposed to comments makes it REALLY challenging to follow along with. Reddit's voting design makes sense as every post is shown on one page, and the comments are formed underneath the original ones, allowing users to easily understand which comment is being responded to.


I love me some AM, so I am in no way attacking/arguing/trying to be mean here. I just don't want to lose another forum for something as simple as me being mildly mentally retarded.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
We could install a comment system underneath. Posts and comments are different, like reddit.
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
We could install a comment system underneath. Posts and comments are different, like reddit.
Using a system like reddit (in its entirety) would be pretty damn awesome here IMO, and you guys are definitely on the right track for it.

we'd basically end up being reddit.com/r/anabolicminds (and the various subreddits such as supplements, nootropics, etc) but its a very intuitive system that seems to have spread everywhere. On the other hand, I'm totally good with a normal/old school forum set up.

anyway, not trying to derail the thread, just want to be able to follow along. please disregard my old man rant/ramblings here yall.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
There are some things I really like about it, and things I can't stand....just trying to take the good points and integrate into this. Back to the topic :)
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
There are some things I really like about it, and things I can't stand....just trying to take the good points and integrate into this. Back to the topic :)

back to the topic...


any company with <50m in annual revenue is about to be out of business within the next 5(ish) years. There's no way a small(ish) company can compete with the big boys when theres nothing left to be sold outside of amino acids and some random botanicals which everyone has the same access to. Times are about to be very very hard for most companies.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
I think putting the burden on the consumer only for the safety of a supplement is pretty much an admission that you have no regard for safety, as long as you get yours. And to state that we are expecting supplement companies to do too much isn't true at all. We expect MUCH more from other industries.

I mean, would you stand for this kind of behavior from a drug company? I mean, that's what they did with opioids and they should be skewered for it.
People have the ultimately responsibility of what they put in their bodies. Sure companies should ideally produce safe and effective products but many sups have a range of safety where there is some inherited risk. With sups without human studies they are of course more risky but they are selling it to those who want it. If a company makes a 300 mg caf pill vs a common 200 mg because some people want or only response to higher doses are they being unsafe or catering to those who want and respond to it? Both but that's where you decide if it's for you.

I lost count of how many alfalfa, lettuce, meat recalls there have been many have died from bacteria poisoning. Tons of drug companies have had recalls but we still use their products. I feel sups is viewed differently by most as shadier but it really is case by to case to me anyway.

The opioid crisis sucks I'm with you on that and we need better safer options. Drug companies are working on it but it's going to be awhile. Kratom, CBD, tianeptine are all available now and are arguably safer options. I always have rather options even with potential safety issues than have no option. I'm not with the antivax groups but I will says conventional medicine is not always the most effective or best choice in every case. We need other options and sups help fill that void. Now let's hope they don't get over regulated to the point most of the brands here are gone in a few years or 2-5x the cost. I don't think anyone wants that.
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
People have the ultimately responsibility of what they put in their bodies. Sure companies should ideally produce safe and effective products but many sups have a range of safety where there is some inherited risk. With sups without human studies they are of course more risky but they are selling it to those who want it. If a company makes a 300 mg caf pill vs a common 200 mg because some people want or only response to higher doses are they being unsafe or catering to those who want and respond to it?

I lost count of how many alfalfa, lettuce, meat recalls there have been many have died from bacteria poisoning. Tons of drug companies have had recalls but we still use their products. I feel sups is viewed differently by most as shadier but it really is case by to case to me anyway.

The opioid crisis sucks I'm with you on that and we need better safer options. Drug companies are working on it but it's going to be awhile. Kratom, CBD, tianeptine are all available now and are arguably safer options. I always have rather options even with potential safety issues than have no option. I'm not with the antivax groups but I will says conventional medicine is not always the most effective or best choice in every case. We need other options and sups help fill that void. Now let's hope they don't get over regulated to the point most of the brands here are gone in a few years or 2-5x the cost. I don't think anyone wants that.

I don't disagree on the surface, but it's a very slippery slope.

Lets say for example that a supplement company finds a compound like tianeptine that shows great numbers on paper, and for all intents and purposes should work like a charm. They release this product into the public, and it begins to draw rave reviews. Customers are loving it and suddenly the next 50 companies out there make their own copycat versions and before we know it there are 25 million people who have used or are currently using the product.

About 5 years down the road we find out the the new compound (which wasn't required to go through safety testing protocols) causes a unique type of brain cancer that there was no possible way to foresee prior to mass ingestion of this stuff.

Was the public able to make an informed choice? Hell, 4 years of mass market use and no major complaints would make me think it was really safe. Yet in reality, the unwanted side effects simply took 5 years to manifest.




I believe that everything (and I mean EVERYTHING should be legal, including meth, cocaine, heroin, jenkem, bath salts...the whole kitchen sink), but I don't agree that everything should be legal to be sold when labeled as a "dietary supplement". When people see pills/powders/RTDs their uninformed opinion is "well its for sale at CVS, why wouldn't it be safe", as opposed to people seeing crystal shards in a dime bad being sold by a guy name Jimmy on a street corner (or a "research chemical website) which they mainly view as potentially inherently dangerous.


This isn't a clearcut/easy argument of "it should be legal" its a long discussion on how to maximize liberties/freedom while not putting unsuspecting consumers directly in harms way.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I did QA microbiology for a pharma company as my first job out of undergrad. We had to test surfaces and air on production lines every time they ran since it was done in a sterile environment. We'd then have to test a random sample of the product itself for every lot of drug that was made. Even before it reached the production line, we had to test the room and equipment that made the drug up and take random water samples from all over the plant. And we constantly had FDA inspections, both planned and unannounced.
I can imagine but never would have thought of all that. People don't realize what goes on behind the scenes. I mean, I use a lot of bulk powders for my supplements and just weighing things out properly is a hassle. I can't imagine all the extra work I'd go through doing it as a business. But I'm glad people are better at it than I am!

People have the ultimately responsibility of what they put in their bodies. Sure companies should ideally produce safe and effective products but many sups have a range of safety where there is some inherited risk. With sups without human studies they are of course more risky but they are selling it to those who want it. If a company makes a 300 mg caf pill vs a common 200 mg because some people want or only response to higher doses are they being unsafe or catering to those who want and respond to it? Both but that's where you decide if it's for you.

I lost count of how many alfalfa, lettuce, meat recalls there have been many have died from bacteria poisoning. Tons of drug companies have had recalls but we still use their products. I feel sups is viewed differently by most as shadier but it really is case by to case to me anyway.

The opioid crisis sucks I'm with you on that and we need better safer options. Drug companies are working on it but it's going to be awhile. Kratom, CBD, tianeptine are all available now and are arguably safer options. I always have rather options even with potential safety issues than have no option. I'm not with the antivax groups but I will says conventional medicine is not always the most effective or best choice in every case. We need other options and sups help fill that void. Now let's hope they don't get over regulated to the point most of the brands here are gone in a few years or 2-5x the cost. I don't think anyone wants that.
See, I can agree with most of what you are saying - to a degree. I feel like our arguments and beliefs aren't 180 degrees from each other, but maybe 30 or 40 degrees from each other. We're going in the same direction. It's a matter of where the line is drawn and figuring out how to draw it.

I'm all for options, even if it isn't generally accepted in medicine - sometimes things work and we just don't know they work yet.

But on the same hand, I REALLY think it goes too far a lot of times with people making these outlandish claims that get repeated and people think they are true, and there is no basis in science at all - or worse, some science that is misinterpreted and blown out of proportion so it seems factual (look at this reference!) but is way off. I mean, look at all the apple cider vinegar people out there. I'll be the first to say there may be some science pointing to SOME effects from acetic acid. But will it cure half the stuff that they say it will as effectively as they say it will? No way. And it can be risky because even though the side effects of this may be relatively safe, the fact someone starts relying on it thinking it will do things it won't could have an impact on the care they receive. No different than someone using opioids for chronic pain - the evidence wasn't there, but it was often repeated as fact and even doctors believed it. It isn't just about being smart or dumb, and often the smartest people can find ways to justify stupid things in their heads that less intelligent people wouldn't.

And I'm all for people being able to fight for their own lives - but you are focused on one resource and I am maybe focused on another. You are focused on the availability of the hard materials. I am focused on the availability of the knowledge - if something were proven, it would be more widely used.

I also think our standard of proof can be a little low. Often, it takes quite a bit to prove something. Gravity had to be tested quite a bit before it became a law. It took Stephen Hawking to get certain ideas about black holes accepted by the physics community. It takes a lot of work.

As is often the case in these debates, it seems like there is probably more agreement than disagreement, but the details/approach are what create the debate.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
I don't disagree on the surface, but it's a very slippery slope.

Lets say for example that a supplement company finds a compound like tianeptine that shows great numbers on paper, and for all intents and purposes should work like a charm. They release this product into the public, and it begins to draw rave reviews. Customers are loving it and suddenly the next 50 companies out there make their own copycat versions and before we know it there are 25 million people who have used or are currently using the product.

About 5 years down the road we find out the the new compound (which wasn't required to go through safety testing protocols) causes a unique type of brain cancer that there was no possible way to foresee prior to mass ingestion of this stuff.

Was the public able to make an informed choice? Hell, 4 years of mass market use and no major complaints would make me think it was really safe. Yet in reality, the unwanted side effects simply took 5 years to manifest.

I believe that everything (and I mean EVERYTHING should be legal, including meth, cocaine, heroin, jenkem, bath salts...the whole kitchen sink), but I don't agree that everything should be legal to be sold when labeled as a "dietary supplement". When people see pills/powders/RTDs their uninformed opinion is "well its for sale at CVS, why wouldn't it be safe", as opposed to people seeing crystal shards in a dime bad being sold by a guy name Jimmy on a street corner (or a "research chemical website) which they mainly view as potentially inherently dangerous.


This isn't a clearcut/easy argument of "it should be legal" its a long discussion on how to maximize liberties/freedom while not putting unsuspecting consumers directly in harms way.
Depends on what information regarding safety or known long term effects was presented. I don't know offhand of any cases of sups causing long term problems like brain cancer but I do know of many prescription drugs not studied long term that ending up with increased risk of death. Usually drug companies don't get shutdown they just recall the drugs or add a disclaimer like nsaids did.

I don't think rcs should be sold a sups but I'm more open to sups that are modified like vinpocetine, phenibut, picamilon or if it's found in nature and there's some type of data to suggest safety or effectiveness. More so the former because they do have safety data and decades of clinical use.

Unsuspecting or just ignorant consumers? Drug companies don't inform clients of recent studies on their drugs that may show new side effects. That's outside their purview and up to the FDA. But sup companies should? I agree it's a slippery slope.

On the flip side there are many people with unmet health needs who but the sup companies make products that help them otherwise they could wait forever for a treatment that never comes.
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Depends on what information regarding safety or known long term effects was presented. I don't know offhand of any cases of sups causing long term problems like brain cancer but I do know of many prescription drugs not studied long term that ending up with increased risk of death. Usually drug companies don't get shutdown they just recall the drugs or add a disclaimer like nsaids did.

I don't think rcs should be sold a sups but I'm more open to sups that are modified like vinpocetine, phenibut, picamilon or if it's found in nature and there's some type of data to suggest safety or effectiveness. More so the former because they do have safety data and decades of clinical use.

Unsuspecting or just ignorant consumers? Drug companies don't inform clients of recent studies on their drugs that may show new side effects. That's outside their purview and up to the FDA. But sup companies should? I agree it's a slippery slope.

On the flip side there are many people with unmet health needs who but the sup companies make products that help them otherwise they could wait forever for a treatment that never comes.

lot of problems in the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA, but just because it's currently an issue with drugs doesn't mean it should also be one with supplements.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I don't disagree on the surface, but it's a very slippery slope.

Lets say for example that a supplement company finds a compound like tianeptine that shows great numbers on paper, and for all intents and purposes should work like a charm. They release this product into the public, and it begins to draw rave reviews. Customers are loving it and suddenly the next 50 companies out there make their own copycat versions and before we know it there are 25 million people who have used or are currently using the product.

About 5 years down the road we find out the the new compound (which wasn't required to go through safety testing protocols) causes a unique type of brain cancer that there was no possible way to foresee prior to mass ingestion of this stuff.

Was the public able to make an informed choice? Hell, 4 years of mass market use and no major complaints would make me think it was really safe. Yet in reality, the unwanted side effects simply took 5 years to manifest.




I believe that everything (and I mean EVERYTHING should be legal, including meth, cocaine, heroin, jenkem, bath salts...the whole kitchen sink), but I don't agree that everything should be legal to be sold when labeled as a "dietary supplement". When people see pills/powders/RTDs their uninformed opinion is "well its for sale at CVS, why wouldn't it be safe", as opposed to people seeing crystal shards in a dime bad being sold by a guy name Jimmy on a street corner (or a "research chemical website) which they mainly view as potentially inherently dangerous.


This isn't a clearcut/easy argument of "it should be legal" its a long discussion on how to maximize liberties/freedom while not putting unsuspecting consumers directly in harms way.
Awesome post. The "Everything should be legal but not everything should legally be labeled as a dietary supplement" is along the lines of what I have been thinking. You want to use Testosterone, fine. You have to source syringes, needles, and test from some place that is not selling it for human consumption and make your own decision, which required at least some minimal amount of education in order to find sources and anybody who didn't figure out there might be dangers in sourcing some chemical from a "not for human use" site and injecting it might have some dangers worth examining, well...at some point there is some Darwinism at play. But again, even that line may need adjustment.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
lot of problems in the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA, but just because it's currently an issue with drugs doesn't mean it should also be one with supplements.
But you expect to hold sups to a higher standard than drugs are treated by the FDA?
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
But you expect to hold sups to a higher standard than drugs are treated by the FDA?
I don't expect to hold them to a higher standard by any stretch of the imagination. I expect dietary supplements to be dietary supplements which means:

§3. Definitions.
  • (a) Definition of Certain Foods as Dietary Supplements. Section 201 (21 U.S.C. 321) is amended by adding at the end the following:

  • “(ff) The term “dietary supplement” -
    • “(1) means a product (other than tobacco) intended to supplement the diet that bears or contains one or more of the following dietary ingredients:
      • “(A) a vitamin;
      • “(B) a mineral;
      • “(C) an herb or other botanical;
      • “(D) an amino acid;
      • “(E) a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; or
      • “(F) a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any ingredient described in clause (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E);
    • “(2) means a product that -
      • “(A)(i) is intended for ingestion in a form described in section 411(c)(1)(B)(i); or
      • “(ii) complies with section 411(c)(1)(B)(ii);
      • “(B) is not represented for use as a conventional food or as a sole item of a meal or the diet; and
      • “(C) is labeled as a dietary supplement; and
    • “(3) does -
      • “(A) include an article that is approved as a new drug under section 505, certified as an antibiotic under section 507, or licensed as a biologic under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) and was, prior to such approval, certification, or license, marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food unless the Secretary has issued a regulation, after notice and comment, finding that the article, when used as or in a dietary supplement under the conditions of use and dosages set forth in the labeling for such dietary supplement, is unlawful under section 402(f); and
      • “(B) not include -
        • “(i) an article that is approved as a new drug under section 505, certified as an antibiotic under section 507, or licensed as a biologic under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), or
        • “(ii) an article authorized for investigation as a new drug, antibiotic, or biological for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public,
  • which was not before such approval, certification, licensing, or authorization marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food unless the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, has issued a regulation, after notice and comment, finding that the article would be lawful under this Act.
Meet those requirements and I'll never have a complaint.


Outside of CBD (which I believe should be legal to sell as a dietary supplement), the other compounds being thrown around in this discussion do not meet the definition of a dietary supplement and should not be allowed to be sold as such.
 

SDR

Member
Awards
0
it's a very slippery slope.
The problem is when FDA lists (not final decision) ingredients that are naturally occurring, in supplements for decades without issue, and presumed ODI, we need to accept that 99% of what is sold today many not be here, as you put it, in 5 years. I'm referring to their advisory page.
 
Last edited:
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
But you expect to hold sups to a higher standard than drugs are treated by the FDA?
I don't expect to hold them to a higher standard by any stretch of the imagination. I expect dietary supplements to be dietary supplements which means:

§3. Definitions.
  • (a) Definition of Certain Foods as Dietary Supplements. Section 201 (21 U.S.C. 321) is amended by adding at the end the following:

  • “(ff) The term “dietary supplement” -
    • “(1) means a product (other than tobacco) intended to supplement the diet that bears or contains one or more of the following dietary ingredients:
      • “(A) a vitamin;
      • “(B) a mineral;
      • “(C) an herb or other botanical;
      • “(D) an amino acid;
      • “(E) a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; or
      • “(F) a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any ingredient described in clause (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E);
    • “(2) means a product that -
      • “(A)(i) is intended for ingestion in a form described in section 411(c)(1)(B)(i); or
      • “(ii) complies with section 411(c)(1)(B)(ii);
      • “(B) is not represented for use as a conventional food or as a sole item of a meal or the diet; and
      • “(C) is labeled as a dietary supplement; and
    • “(3) does -
      • “(A) include an article that is approved as a new drug under section 505, certified as an antibiotic under section 507, or licensed as a biologic under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) and was, prior to such approval, certification, or license, marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food unless the Secretary has issued a regulation, after notice and comment, finding that the article, when used as or in a dietary supplement under the conditions of use and dosages set forth in the labeling for such dietary supplement, is unlawful under section 402(f); and
      • “(B) not include -
        • “(i) an article that is approved as a new drug under section 505, certified as an antibiotic under section 507, or licensed as a biologic under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), or
        • “(ii) an article authorized for investigation as a new drug, antibiotic, or biological for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public,
  • which was not before such approval, certification, licensing, or authorization marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food unless the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, has issued a regulation, after notice and comment, finding that the article would be lawful under this Act.
Meet those requirements and I'll never have a complaint.


Outside of CBD (which I believe should be legal to sell as a dietary supplement), the other compounds being thrown around in this discussion do not meet the definition of a dietary supplement and should not be allowed to be sold as such.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Unsuspecting or just ignorant consumers? Drug companies don't inform clients of recent studies on their drugs that may show new side effects. That's outside their purview and up to the FDA. But sup companies should? I agree it's a slippery slope.
If the FDA thinks the study is valid, they'll make the drug company update their PI (that piece of paper with all the fine print that come with your meds) which lists all side effects or, in some cases, make them add a black box warning. Same thing with patients taking the drug who experience a side effect. Any reported side effects to the company have to get reported to the FDA. If the FDA sees a trend, whether it's significant or not, they can make the company update their PI. So no, the drug company doesn't go out of their way to add side effects, and they shouldn't typically find anything new if they ran a proper clinical trial. Plus, they might not be aware of each and every study done, depending on what their drug is (aspirin vs some orphan drug for a disease that 500 people in the entire world have). However, the FDA tends to be overly cautious, so if it's a solid study, that side effect is going in.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
I don't expect to hold them to a higher standard by any stretch of the imagination. I expect dietary supplements to be dietary supplements which means:



Meet those requirements and I'll never have a complaint.


Outside of CBD (which I believe should be legal to sell as a dietary supplement), the other compounds being thrown around in this discussion do not meet the definition of a dietary supplement and should not be allowed to be sold as such.
For some I don't disagree like Tianeptine or truly synthetic rather than vitamins modified for better absorption (ascorbyl palmitate, water soluble vitamins, phenibut, etc). Kratom should be included ideally after some basic safety studies were done.

But there then needs to be a 3rd category that covers rcs and people's access to them both for research and informed personal use. Right now this area is relatively unregulated and a key factor in future regulations. So for those who want access to rcs and believe you should have the right to use them responsibly it's getting time to form an org or something to help stem any new laws or bills. Steps off soapbox.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
The problem is when FDA lists (not final decision) ingredients that are naturally occurring, in supplements for decades without issue, and presumed ODI, we need to accept that 99% of what is sold today many not be here, as you put it, in 5 years. I'm referring to their advisory page.
They did this with vinpocetine....AFTER they approved it already in the 90's. Decades later no established or reported serious side effects but now they want to recall it. What's to stop them from recalling anything they don't like on a whim. This is just going to lead into a HUGE underground market for design sups.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
If the FDA thinks the study is valid, they'll make the drug company update their PI (that piece of paper with all the fine print that come with your meds) which lists all side effects or, in some cases, make them add a black box warning. Same thing with patients taking the drug who experience a side effect. Any reported side effects to the company have to get reported to the FDA. If the FDA sees a trend, whether it's significant or not, they can make the company update their PI. So no, the drug company doesn't go out of their way to add side effects, and they shouldn't typically find anything new if they ran a proper clinical trial. Plus, they might not be aware of each and every study done, depending on what their drug is (aspirin vs some orphan drug for a disease that 500 people in the entire world have). However, the FDA tends to be overly cautious, so if it's a solid study, that side effect is going in.
They can and unless it's immediate side effects occurring within hours to weeks after use it's usually not picked up right away. It can take decades to determine the long term sides of some drugs. I say drugs but they really are just research chemicals mostly synthetic but some natural. I am far more leery of those vs natural not that natural is always safer but I feel confident saying they are overall safer than rcs.

The FDA regulates drugs and sups and has guidelines for them and enforces them but don't require them to list any side effects from what I can tell no more than certain foods like grapefruit and meds. Do you want the FDA to do more to regulate side effect warnings on sups or see more companies self regulate and do it themselves?
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
For some I don't disagree like Tianeptine or truly synthetic rather than vitamins modified for better absorption (ascorbyl palmitate, water soluble vitamins, phenibut, etc). Kratom should be included ideally after some basic safety studies were done.

But there then needs to be a 3rd category that covers rcs and people's access to them both for research and informed personal use. Right now this area is relatively unregulated and a key factor in future regulations. So for those who want access to rcs and believe you should have the right to use them responsibly it's getting time to form an org or something to help stem any new laws or bills. Steps off soapbox.
"modified for better absorption" is where I take some issue.

I agree that the FDA could probably have some better guidelines but as we can see in this thread, drawing a line is tough to do.

But saying something like phenibut or ALCAR is simply modified for better absorption doesn't defend it. This is actually kind of a hallmark of pharmaceuticals. We always talk about how pharma companies won't research a natural compound because they cannot patent it - and this is the weakness in that argument. They can, have and do research natural substamces all the time because kf they find something that works, those crafty engineers can akd do use that knowledge to create a new compound that is modified (often simply for better absorptiom and I suppose sometimes simply for novelty) and patentable.

Its a real 101 trick that these companies use. The fact something is not patentable in its natural form is a minor bump in the road.

Ultimately any modification is still a modification.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
They can and unless it's immediate side effects occurring within hours to weeks after use it's usually not picked up right away. It can take decades to determine the long term sides of some drugs. I say drugs but they really are just research chemicals mostly synthetic but some natural. I am far more leery of those vs natural not that natural is always safer but I feel confident saying they are overall safer than rcs.

The FDA regulates drugs and sups and has guidelines for them and enforces them but don't require them to list any side effects from what I can tell no more than certain foods like grapefruit and meds. Do you want the FDA to do more to regulate side effect warnings on sups or see more companies self regulate and do it themselves?
That's why phase III trials tend to go on for so long and why there is post-marketing trials and reports after the drug is approved. And synthetic isn't inherently less safe than natural, it just sounds scary like gmo. There are plenty of naturally-occurring things that are extremely toxic.

I'm fine with companies doing things on their own. However, once a company steps out of their lane and wants to market something that is closer to a drug than a supplement--especially if they start making medical claims--then they need to not be surprised when the FDA jumps in. If a company wants to play in pharma world, they can, but that comes with a whole different set of rules and the membership is pricey.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
That's why phase III trials tend to go on for so long and why there is post-marketing trials and reports after the drug is approved. And synthetic isn't inherently less safe than natural, it just sounds scary like gmo. There are plenty of naturally-occurring things that are extremely toxic.

I'm fine with companies doing things on their own. However, once a company steps out of their lane and wants to market something that is closer to a drug than a supplement--especially if they start making medical claims--then they need to not be surprised when the FDA jumps in. If a company wants to play in pharma world, they can, but that comes with a whole different set of rules and the membership is pricey.
I never got the entire synthetic/natural thing. I would much rather have something designed for the purpose at hand that I know what I am getting over something natural that leaves me at whim of genetic variations, etc.

When I want to turn a bolt, I would much rather have a man made wrench then a twig.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
"modified for better absorption" is where I take some issue.

I agree that the FDA could probably have some better guidelines but as we can see in this thread, drawing a line is tough to do.

But saying something like phenibut or ALCAR is simply modified for better absorption doesn't defend it. This is actually kind of a hallmark of pharmaceuticals. We always talk about how pharma companies won't research a natural compound because they cannot patent it - and this is the weakness in that argument. They can, have and do research natural substamces all the time because kf they find something that works, those crafty engineers can akd do use that knowledge to create a new compound that is modified (often simply for better absorptiom and I suppose sometimes simply for novelty) and patentable.

Its a real 101 trick that these companies use. The fact something is not patentable in its natural form is a minor bump in the road.

Ultimately any modification is still a modification.
I see nothing wrong with creating a superior form of something natural.
I never got the entire synthetic/natural thing. I would much rather have something designed for the purpose at hand that I know what I am getting over something natural that leaves me at whim of genetic variations, etc.

When I want to turn a bolt, I would much rather have a man made wrench then a twig.
A chemical is a chemical is a chemical. I don't typically judge whether one is natural or not but yes I would prefer a natural route like a herb or amino acid to a drug if they effectiveness is the same. For me I look at whatever i want to take and see what's most effective short and long term. Many natural sups like fish oil or palmylethanolamide I feel alot safer long term than ibuprofen. I wish there was a natural sup for sarms I would rather take that than an rc studied for barely a month in a few or 1 small study.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I never got the entire synthetic/natural thing. I would much rather have something designed for the purpose at hand that I know what I am getting over something natural that leaves me at whim of genetic variations, etc.

When I want to turn a bolt, I would much rather have a man made wrench then a twig.
It just resonates with most people as sounding safe. It's the same thing as when people look at ingredients and claim that this must be bad for you because of all of the big words and chemical names that are hard to pronounce. No, a limited vocabulary doesn't mean it's dangerous. People like Food Babe and other take advantage of it to push their own crap.

You're absolutely correct, though. You can make a drug that has a higher specificity, so lower side effects, than something that occurs naturally.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
6
  • Best Answer
  • The BigT Award
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
I see stuff labeled as organic, but my understanding is that there are a whole lot of loopholes in using that term. Seems like it started as a good idea, but now is a lot of marketing.
I guess it would be hypocritical to say the FDA needs to tighten down, lol.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
6
  • Best Answer
  • The BigT Award
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
The public (at least here in the US) tends to be lazy and not want to take a few minutes to read and learn something new. It's easier to stay ignorant and angry about things that aren't even true. I see people who I went to school with and barely made it through grade school science classes now not vaccinating their kids and afraid of GMOs because they did their "research" and selling essential oils online. I also see people on these boards who talk about buying organic, but then the same people have no issue buying "research chemicals." If this is me being condescending...good!

I'm all for transparency on new technologies of any sort, so definitely in favor of labels even though it's meaningless in regard to GMO food. Monsanto was also in favor of it... https://monsanto.com/company/commitments/safety/statements/gmo-food-labeling/
I see they have until 2020 to comply, but I like transparency.....lol I don't think you are condescending, just being honest with no sugar coating.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I see nothing wrong with creating a superior form of something natural.


A chemical is a chemical is a chemical. I don't typically judge whether one is natural or not but yes I would prefer a natural route like a herb or amino acid to a drug if they effectiveness is the same. For me I look at whatever i want to take and see what's most effective short and long term. Many natural sups like fish oil or palmylethanolamide I feel alot safer long term than ibuprofen. I wish there was a natural sup for sarms I would rather take that than an rc studied for barely a month in a few or 1 small study.
My point isn't that modifying it to make it "superior" is an issue. The point is that modifying it can mean a lot of different things, "superior" is relative to the situation, and the same exact midifcation of one compound will have different effects on another compound in many instances.

As I said after, all for specific uses in some instances. Sometimes it is the way to go. I do think the pharma industry has focused a little too much on being specific as of late, but I get why they would do that and that is off topic.

Your fish oil example is kind of a different argument in health care as well and a good point. That is beyond just chemistry and based more, in my eyes, of providing the body with the resources it was actually designed to run on, which is often over looked. Of course over the long term fish oil is a better answer to minor chronic inflammation. But if you have an acute problem, of course ibuprofen has its use.

Still, that is different than talking about a natural supplement that we don't really need. No one has ever had an issue caused by not smoking cannabis or using phenibut or ALCAR. At least not a proven issue.

Also, there probably are some ingredients that modulate the androgen receptor naturally, but they aren't designed for a purpose like a SARM and the results will obviously be much smaller, maybe unnoticable. But, to your fish oil point, sometimes that is good too. We often want acute effects and overlook things that have to be seen over the long term. If someone asked you what broccoli does for you, you probably wouldn't have many acute effects to talk about but we all know it is healthy if you are consistent.

I feel like you got me rambling now...sorry.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
It just resonates with most people as sounding safe. It's the same thing as when people look at ingredients and claim that this must be bad for you because of all of the big words and chemical names that are hard to pronounce. No, a limited vocabulary doesn't mean it's dangerous. People like Food Babe and other take advantage of it to push their own crap.

You're absolutely correct, though. You can make a drug that has a higher specificity, so lower side effects, than something that occurs naturally.
Yeah, the vocab thing is hilarious. How many people would throw out coffee if it was spelled out by the chemicals that were in it? I mean, you wouldn't eat fruits if the ingredient label talked about anthocyanins and polyphenols. Anthocyanins? Like cyanide!? No way!

Better avoid that sodium bicarbonate. I heard that stuff kills seagulls.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I see they have until 2020 to comply, but I like transparency.....lol I don't think you are condescending, just being honest with no sugar coating.
I'm not sure why but I can't find the original comment you quoted here - but the original comment is so true. People "do their research" and don't really learn anything. I love when people ask me about something and I send them a half dozen studies and they come back with, "that's interesting" which means they came across a couple of big words and stopped reading, and didn't want to ask. I get that people don't want to feel stupid, but if you're not going to try to do it on your own, at least ask for help.

Still, Aleksandar - you can be WAY more condescending that that :) You should try harder.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
My point isn't that modifying it to make it "superior" is an issue. The point is that modifying it can mean a lot of different things, "superior" is relative to the situation, and the same exact midifcation of one compound will have different effects on another compound in many instances.

As I said after, all for specific uses in some instances. Sometimes it is the way to go. I do think the pharma industry has focused a little too much on being specific as of late, but I get why they would do that and that is off topic.

Your fish oil example is kind of a different argument in health care as well and a good point. That is beyond just chemistry and based more, in my eyes, of providing the body with the resources it was actually designed to run on, which is often over looked. Of course over the long term fish oil is a better answer to minor chronic inflammation. But if you have an acute problem, of course ibuprofen has its use.

Still, that is different than talking about a natural supplement that we don't really need. No one has ever had an issue caused by not smoking cannabis or using phenibut or ALCAR. At least not a proven issue.

Also, there probably are some ingredients that modulate the androgen receptor naturally, but they aren't designed for a purpose like a SARM and the results will obviously be much smaller, maybe unnoticable. But, to your fish oil point, sometimes that is good too. We often want acute effects and overlook things that have to be seen over the long term. If someone asked you what broccoli does for you, you probably wouldn't have many acute effects to talk about but we all know it is healthy if you are consistent.

I feel like you got me rambling now...sorry.
It's a fine line. Fish oil esters are now considered a drug and now no one can comment on the truthful research on fish oil and heart conditions. It's the same type of mentality that if the FDA approves a natural drug it's only approving that brand of said product. or approved generics. Like THC even though it was approved as Marinol all other brands can't be promoted for any medical use and even has a different scheduling despite the fact it's all THC. Same with other "natural" drugs like GHB, or green tea extract (FDA approved for HPV). The FDA isn't improving availability or price it focuses on protecting that brand's approval status and licensing rights. I don't see this type of regulating as improving access to sups or treatments.

Yes ibu may work more acutely but it also messes up COX-1 and is basically an rc shown to increase risk of death. If we were to regulate products on the market that are unsafe or puts people at risk we should start with otc drugs as they play a much larger role in hospitalizations and deaths than sups. Palmitoylethanolamide seems to work just as well but not only without the sides but a ton of side benefits. While there are some drug with side benefits most are used short term or as needed. The promising things about sups is they have many potential positive effects and seem to be safe long term but I agree it's a case by case basis.

I do think people should have access to pain relief treatments whether it's through FDA approved drugs or other options. No companies should not ideally put drugs into sups but if it's an effective product that works and is relatively safe in informed users (can be safely used) then I want it regardless of FDA regulations. Why? Because it'll help me achieve my goal.
 
BCseacow83

BCseacow83

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I had issues with phenibut, anesthetized has about 2 grams per serve and if I used it a few times in a row I would then suffer crazy insomnia without it but I still stand by it as my number one sleep supplement. I use bsl growth now which is melatonin based among other things meaning I'll only use anesthetized maybe twice a week and then often only at half a serve.

The FDA are not protecting us. Phenibut can not be bought OTC in the UK but can be prescribed. As usual it's all about money.

The answer should be to put warnings on the labels stating that it can become addictive etc. Then it should be up to us to decide if we use it.

I mean it's funny that they haven't taken cigarettes away from us. Nicotine is an addictive drug but no, the government make way too much tax money from them so let's just stamp the packets with warnings and let the public decide if they want to take the risk.

As long as the compound is labeled correctly we should be allowed to ingest anything we want, period. We don't have to call them supplements as some are clearly not based on DSHEA. I don't need a bunch of twats at ANY alphabet agency making decisions for me. I am an adult and should be free to make any personal choice I care to make, no matter how stupid or smart it may be. NOW if my stupid choice were to affect a third party throw the book at me.

For example, I believe all drugs should be legal without question. Possession/use/sales all legal. This will cost the prison industrial complex many "years" of incarceration/profit but we make up for that by exponentially increasing the penalties for drug-related crimes. Rob an old lady to pay for your fix FK you 20 years, basically amp up the years for all the crime associated with drug users but the use/possession is no longer a crime. Just like alcohol, many people can have fun on the weekend without ruining their life and there is NO REASON some dipsht in Washington should pick and choose what you can have that fun with.

It's a simple system I dream of complete freedom of choice and overwhelming responsibility for said choices.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
As long as the compound is labeled correctly we should be allowed to ingest anything we want, period. We don't have to call them supplements as some are clearly not based on DSHEA. I don't need a bunch of twats at ANY alphabet agency making decisions for me. I am an adult and should be free to make any personal choice I care to make, no matter how stupid or smart it may be. NOW if my stupid choice were to affect a third party throw the book at me.

For example, I believe all drugs should be legal without question. Possession/use/sales all legal. This will cost the prison industrial complex many "years" of incarceration/profit but we make up for that by exponentially increasing the penalties for drug-related crimes. Rob an old lady to pay for your fix FK you 20 years, basically amp up the years for all the crime associated with drug users but the use/possession is no longer a crime. Just like alcohol, many people can have fun on the weekend without ruining their life and there is NO REASON some dipsht in Washington should pick and choose what you can have that fun with.

It's a simple system I dream of complete freedom of choice and overwhelming responsibility for said choices.
We certainly should have free access to a wide range of chemicals, sups, etc for prevention, treatment, enhancement, antiaging approaches to try and benefit from. It gives us the ability to create a personalized cocktail of whatever we're striding for with some degree of research or reason that it works.

The US was created to be a freedom focused country. Freedoms to love, consume, enjoy our lives however we want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. Sure there's some matters of public concerns like hallucinogens, viral outbreaks, vaccinations that should be somewhat regulated. Prior to the FDA anything was for sale and yes there's pros and cons to that scenario which is partly why the FDA was create and it grew immensely from there.

Unlike other countries which strongly regulated supplements the US had little concerns until a bad batch of L-Tryptophan sicken and killed a handful of people. How did the FDA respond? They banned l-tryptophan from the US market rather than just go after the one company with a bad batch. Tell me that's not overkill.

Let's hope freedoms prevail in upcoming years.
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Look at how companies have gotten big in the past. Almost every single time, it's as a result of them selling stuff that is either banned, or gray area. How else would the be able to differentiate from the competition?

If the entire industry is tightened down and we all have the same available ingredients, how can company "b" expect to profit when company "a" has a marketing budget 10-100x larger?

The same thing happens in other industries all day long. Ever wonder why there isn't another cola product outside of coke and pepsi that anyone gives a damn about? Sure, RC cola exists, but it's total sales are a drop in the bucket compared to any of the big boys. Hell, even I thought some "artisanal" soda would have made it big by now, but they just can't compete.

The only industry that has seen the little guys compete with the big boys lately is the craft beer industry. They used what they had available to them and created a new product (think Budweiser ever would've sold an IPA if they didn't have to?). The problem however is that as more and more craft companies grow and take up more industry space, there is less chance for the little guys to make a dent as there are less options for a "new product". The same is happening here.


Even just 5 years ago there were more and more small companies releasing supps, and now its slowed down significantly as things like prohormones and exotic stims are being eliminated. 10 years ago? you had new companies popping up daily. 15 years ago? New companies came out even faster. We've been on this trajectory for a long time, and there's no stopping it at this point.
 
soxbsbll05

soxbsbll05

Active member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
Just stocked up on BZRK since they will be reformatting as soon as their stock runs out
 
3clipseGT

3clipseGT

On my grind
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Look at how companies have gotten big in the past. Almost every single time, it's as a result of them selling stuff that is either banned, or gray area. How else would the be able to differentiate from the competition?

If the entire industry is tightened down and we all have the same available ingredients, how can company "b" expect to profit when company "a" has a marketing budget 10-100x larger?

The same thing happens in other industries all day long. Ever wonder why there isn't another cola product outside of coke and pepsi that anyone gives a damn about? Sure, RC cola exists, but it's total sales are a drop in the bucket compared to any of the big boys. Hell, even I thought some "artisanal" soda would have made it big by now, but they just can't compete.

The only industry that has seen the little guys compete with the big boys lately is the craft beer industry. They used what they had available to them and created a new product (think Budweiser ever would've sold an IPA if they didn't have to?). The problem however is that as more and more craft companies grow and take up more industry space, there is less chance for the little guys to make a dent as there are less options for a "new product". The same is happening here.


Even just 5 years ago there were more and more small companies releasing supps, and now its slowed down significantly as things like prohormones and exotic stims are being eliminated. 10 years ago? you had new companies popping up daily. 15 years ago? New companies came out even faster. We've been on this trajectory for a long time, and there's no stopping it at this point.
Makes sense man and I agree, just wanted your opinion on it. Thanks for the reply.
 

fitdocrx1

New member
Awards
0
Really gonna protect the FDA @Aleksandar37 ?? The same Agency that approves meds that kill tens of thousands annually but we can’t be adult enough to understand the risks of dmha and phenibut.

Those of you who need the govt to think for you so be it. The rest of us don’t need or want them interfering in our daily lives.

Most of the time they are busy either getting lobbied or chasing down ghosts. Also falsifying studies, documents, etc. Anything you ingest has risks. Too much water can kill you. Maybe the FDA should ban water too?
churh
 

fitdocrx1

New member
Awards
0
It's my old friend straw man. I'm speaking to this specific instance. And if being an "adult" means not basing medical decisions on science, then adult away. You can't understand the risks if the studies haven't even been done.

Your logic isn't actually logic. It's not about banning things, it's about making sure they're safe and there is a government agency concerned with making water safe.
bro if you really think the fda cares about making the water safe over turning a profit, then you the opposition...they got millions hooked on the most dangerous most addictive drugs out there. while having marijuanna with all its benifits outlawed.
theve held back on cures for diseases to make more money, and pushed more dangerous less effective hiv drugs when they had the safer better formulation in there safe waiting for there old stock to sell why innocent people were tortured and died from the complications of there dangerous schemes. it has nothing to do with the publics health anymore, this country has made it a machine of a buisness of locking people up and them banning this phenibut and whatever has more to do with money than safety and if you dont see that im sorry to say this your a moron. I'm on the front lines, I'm a veteran of this war on drugs, ive been imprisoned, and experienced this **** first hand. I lost all my friends because the fda only decided to make NARCAN legally readily available after this bullshit "epidemic" it was a murder charge Basicly before and when fentanyl hit it wiped out my whole group of friends then a few month's later after the damage was done this fda u defending tells us that all my friends and family didn't have to die...they've had a overdose cure this whole time just finally made it legal to give the public the antidote that would of saved my graduating class Basicly it hit mass and new hampshire hard....sorry for the rant I just had to get that out....sticking up for the fda and this cut throat buisness called the USA.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
bro if you really think the fda cares about making the water safe over turning a profit, then you the opposition...they got millions hooked on the most dangerous most addictive drugs out there. while having marijuanna with all its benifits outlawed.
theve held back on cures for diseases to make more money, and pushed more dangerous less effective hiv drugs when they had the safer better formulation in there safe waiting for there old stock to sell why innocent people were tortured and died from the complications of there dangerous schemes. it has nothing to do with the publics health anymore, this country has made it a machine of a buisness of locking people up and them banning this phenibut and whatever has more to do with money than safety and if you dont see that im sorry to say this your a moron. I'm on the front lines, I'm a veteran of this war on drugs, ive been imprisoned, and experienced this **** first hand. I lost all my friends because the fda only decided to make NARCAN legally readily available after this bullshit "epidemic" it was a murder charge Basicly before and when fentanyl hit it wiped out my whole group of friends then a few month's later after the damage was done this fda u defending tells us that all my friends and family didn't have to die...they've had a overdose cure this whole time just finally made it legal to give the public the antidote that would of saved my graduating class Basicly it hit mass and new hampshire hard....sorry for the rant I just had to get that out....sticking up for the fda and this cut throat buisness called the USA.
First, this "moron" is telling you that narcan has been approved since 1971 and you can get it for free in a lot of places. There are newer devices that have been approved that make delivery easier (e.g. nasal spray, epi-pen type devices, etc.), but the drug itself, naloxone, is older than most people who probably use this board. Second, your friends deaths aren't on the FDA, they're on them and you. What the hell are you doing to help the situation except make it worse by spreading lies about crap you have no idea about. If I die in a plane crash, does that make my friend an automatic expert on flying? Your logic seems to be that the scientists, physicians, and the FDA are all harming society while you and your fellow junkie friends are benefiting society on the "front lines". If you don't like something that is happening in this country, get off your ass and change it. Educate yourself (means actual education, not finding random bs on the internet) and get involved or keep feeling sorry for yourself and blaming others for your troubles.
 

fitdocrx1

New member
Awards
0
First, this "moron" is telling you that narcan has been approved since 1971 and you can get it for free in a lot of places. There are newer devices that have been approved that make delivery easier (e.g. nasal spray, epi-pen type devices, etc.), but the drug itself, naloxone, is older than most people who probably use this board. Second, your friends deaths aren't on the FDA, they're on them and you. What the hell are you doing to help the situation except make it worse by spreading lies about crap you have no idea about. If I die in a plane crash, does that make my friend an automatic expert on flying? Your logic seems to be that the scientists, physicians, and the FDA are all harming society while you and your fellow junkie friends are benefiting society on the "front lines". If you don't like something that is happening in this country, get off your ass and change it. Educate yourself (means actual education, not finding random bs on the internet) and get involved or keep feeling sorry for yourself and blaming others for your troubles.
bro look into it atleast here in New York it wasn't readily available to the public in any form til 2017....the only ppl that could administer it was paramedics etc. and half the time you called 911 for a overdose someone was getting arrested for atleast something so it was a deterrent esp in the drug culture you call 911 with work in the house now 2 ppl lost there lives back was how it was back then....I'm not reading this I lived it...did you?
 

fitdocrx1

New member
Awards
0
First, this "moron" is telling you that narcan has been approved since 1971 and you can get it for free in a lot of places. There are newer devices that have been approved that make delivery easier (e.g. nasal spray, epi-pen type devices, etc.), but the drug itself, naloxone, is older than most people who probably use this board. Second, your friends deaths aren't on the FDA, they're on them and you. What the hell are you doing to help the situation except make it worse by spreading lies about crap you have no idea about. If I die in a plane crash, does that make my friend an automatic expert on flying? Your logic seems to be that the scientists, physicians, and the FDA are all harming society while you and your fellow junkie friends are benefiting society on the "front lines". If you don't like something that is happening in this country, get off your ass and change it. Educate yourself (means actual education, not finding random bs on the internet) and get involved or keep feeling sorry for yourself and blaming others for your troubles.
another thing I'm not blaming any thing on anyone.... I'm only trying to prove my point that the government (fda) not scientists or anyone else.... is about money first then they will make the public belive its about safety....not blaming anyone for anything sorry if it came across like that. I just lived it. they would sacrifice my life whether prison nor letting me die if it meant them saving or making money.....one life on these streets means nothing....to any govt body of any sort...
 

fitdocrx1

New member
Awards
0
another thing I'm not blaming any thing on anyone.... I'm only trying to prove my point that the government (fda) not scientists or anyone else.... is about money first then they will make the public belive its about safety....not blaming anyone for anything sorry if it came across like that. I just lived it. they would sacrifice my life whether prison nor letting me die if it meant them saving or making money.....one life on these streets means nothing....to any govt body of any sort...
and bro I'll be at the state house at 930 am in albany ny supporting just what I'm talking about...anyone local is more than welcome more support the better...were about parole reform, harm reduction, m.a.t. medicated assisted treatment in jail and prison meaning continuing suboxone or methadone treatment while in jail, and anything that will help our community instead of feed your "govt. machine more $" look it up its katal organization...so what were you saying about getting off my ass and doing something? I didn't catch that? what you doing? reading blogs and googling **** to argue about loser... I'm done...dm if you wanna get in on the katal groups cause.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
bro look into it atleast here in New York it wasn't readily available to the public in any form til 2017....the only ppl that could administer it was paramedics etc. and half the time you called 911 for a overdose someone was getting arrested for atleast something so it was a deterrent esp in the drug culture you call 911 with work in the house now 2 ppl lost there lives back was how it was back then....I'm not reading this I lived it...did you?
Bro, NY passed a law in 2006 that made it legal for anybody to have naloxone. I grew up on the south side of Chicago and have done consulting work for pharma, including a company that make a naloxone-delivering device based in Virginia. So yes, I've lived it on both sides and have had several friends and family who either went to jail for heroin, died from a heroin overdose, or both. And I'm more than familiar with people not wanting to call 911 or even risk taking somebody to the ER, but that's a situation they created. That's not the fault of the FDA or the cops or whoever else you want to blame.
 

Similar threads


Top