Have you been fooled all these years...

[hardknock]

Invalid Link Removed

^This article links to a pdf written by cdx whom have been used by many "companies" for testing of various raws. It would seem that Divinal is the major in question here.

Now, I know that it has been used in many products and is the flag ship of some product. Also, I know that I have used a certain company's version a few years ago and now, that same company's version, did nothing for me to be honest. I could rate it a 10 several years ago and a 1 now. Also, there have been instances of use of another very popular company's product and reports on various boards were stated as stellar. However, in chat the reports have been stated as subpar, not sure why that is/was.

I.e. no, neither company which I experienced was AX.

This would leave me to believe that there either has never been a high extract of raw of Divinal >95% and we have been over paying for years and supplement companies have been lied to by exporters; therefore, they have been duped as well......OR, some companies have known all the time that the concentration was never high to begin with (basically bunk) and it was all a marketing ploy to garner finances.

I would choose to side with the former and give the benefit of the doubt. I would say that many may have been duped by exporters, just as with raws for designers and may have not known what they were using.

This is all the more reason why there has to be some type of regulation. I am not saying that federal interference is needed but there has to be some type of play made before it seriously gets harmful to the people who buy with trust from these companies.

This is a wide issue with all ingredients and supplements. Who can you trust now? If someone is lying about 3,4-D, then what about other ingredients? 3,4-D is just an example. There are many others.

Those that are above this pathetic mess, I applaud you. Those that fall below, well....:booty:

 

[ramon25]

bump, any thoughts?

 

[snuggy]

Is that true?

 

[T-AD]

Sorry to go bursting bubbles and such, but this is kinda old news. Thermolife & AX, probably others as well but I don't remember off-hand, were doing testing on this last year when the news broke. Instead of it being 95% in the aforementioned slew of products, it was more like 5%. The debate raged over labeling, people were angry because they weren't getting what was on the label, and so on. What most failed to recognize was that if people were getting the existing success rate with what was out there (5%), and there was no 95%, then what did the number really matter? Bottom line is that whatever was in the products was producing the success for users. The issue here isn't a matter of companies all of the sudden using a lower % of 3,4-, but rather that labels changed to ACCURATELY portray what was uncovered by CDX testing.