Guest viewing is limited

i'd like PA's opinion on this DMAA research website

_mArs_

_mArs_

Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed
if you have time, could you check it out and give us your opinion
 
Certainly USP labs has gotta be behind this. Nonetheless, it is a comprehensive presentation of information in support of the safety and legality of DMAA
 
Patrick Arnold said:
Certainly USP labs has gotta be behind this. Nonetheless, it is a comprehensive presentation of information in support of the safety and legality of DMAA
Click to expand...

the domain is registered to Vignali, Kaitlin kvignali@[B]qorvis[/B].com
and a google search for "usp labs qorvis" gave me Jack Deschauer "USPlabs spokesman"
he is also the Senior Director of Qorvis...
so Patrick is 100% accurate in stating USP labs is behind this website lol
 
_mArs_ said:
the domain is registered to Vignali, Kaitlin kvignali@[B]qorvis[/B].com
and a google search for "usp labs qorvis" gave me Jack Deschauer "USPlabs spokesman"
he is also the Senior Director of Qorvis...
so Patrick is 100% accurate in stating USP labs is behind this website lol
Click to expand...

Regardless.. I applaud them for fighting back. I think this is the only time I have seen someone have the cajones to not just roll over and take it.
 
DAdams91982 said:
This.

There is no quarter billion dollars in the air right now. I fully expect USP to win this... should they not, this is some precedent being set considering all vitamins and food additives are synthetic replica's of naturals.
Click to expand...

win what specifically?
 
Patrick Arnold said:
win what specifically?
Click to expand...

The class action against them due to DMAA. The plantiff claims the DMAA USP uses is a synthetic representation and therefore does not fall under the DSHEA. This was filed on the heels directly after USP won their first DMAA suit.
Regardless.. the court fees alone I am sure are killer.
 
DAdams91982 said:
The class action against them due to DMAA. The plantiff claims the DMAA USP uses is a synthetic representation and therefore does not fall under the DSHEA. This was filed on the heels directly after USP won their first DMAA suit.
Regardless.. the court fees alone I am sure are killer.
Click to expand...

that suit doesnt make much sense to me. i can sort of understand that the consumer can claim they were "defrauded" but what could they possibly demand in damages? I mean, maybe if someone's religion says they will go to hell if they ingest a synthetically derived ingredient then they can claim emotional distress but other than that come on.
 
"in to learn", said mich29
 
DAdams91982 said:
The class action against them due to DMAA. The plantiff claims the DMAA USP uses is a synthetic representation and therefore does not fall under the DSHEA. This was filed on the heels directly after USP won their first DMAA suit.
Regardless.. the court fees alone I am sure are killer.
Click to expand...

The case was dismissed...
 
No focking way LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top