The case for DMAA - thoughts?

VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
We've all known that Hi-Tech is fighting the FDA in regards to the legality of DMAA in dietary supplements. Until very recently, the vast majority of people were posting that there was no way Hi-Tech would be victorious in the battle. Thankfully, some recent happenings in the case have hit the public eye, and I'm curious as to AM's thoughts.


The FDA has argued that DMAA is not found in nature...yet these are just a few examples of what I have found in the court info:






















thoughts? questions? comments? have at it.
 

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Why is the fda going to such great lengths and measures with this?
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Why is the fda going to such great lengths and measures with this?
The FDA declared it as illegal/unsafe and went as far as sending warning letters to "offending" companies. They didn't really put much effort into it.

This "effort" is due to Hi-Tech suing the FDA because Hi-Tech believes DMAA to be a legal dietary ingredient.
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
so all in all we goochi mang
no definitive answers yet, the court has yet to approve/decide for the summary judgement, but I am feeling far more positive about the future of DMAA than I was before I got to see this info!
 

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
What does the fda's case for "not safe" consist of
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
What does the fda's case for "not safe" consist of
They did not offer any expert testimony, and in the documents I have it conclusively shows that the FDA has zero evidence showing DMAA to be unsafe.
 

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
They did not offer any expert testimony, and in the documents I have it conclusively shows that the FDA has zero evidence showing DMAA to be unsafe.
In light of the "edited" study, lol what a bust
 

bosskardo

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
They did not offer any expert testimony, and in the documents I have it conclusively shows that the FDA has zero evidence showing DMAA to be unsafe.
Wasn't it because of students mixing 500mg doses with alcohol and dieing.
And someone dieing from something like heatstroke after taking dmaa and running in a really hot weather and probably not drinking.
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Wasn't it because of students mixing 500mg doses with alcohol and dieing.
And someone dieing from something like heatstroke after taking dmaa and running in a really hot weather and probably not drinking.

this is correct. the pills had 288mg of DMAA each, and people took 2.
 
compan

compan

Active member
Awards
0
this is correct. the pills had 288mg of DMAA each, and people took 2.
That is a super high dose for one pill.

It's like putting 500mg of caffeine into a caffeine pill. Takes one tired person to say "oh I'll need 2" and then...issues.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
They did not offer any expert testimony, and in the documents I have it conclusively shows that the FDA has zero evidence showing DMAA to be unsafe.
after the recent 9th circuit court of appeals ruling I have zero faith in the judiciary system....NONE
 
Woody

Woody

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
after the recent 9th circuit court of appeals ruling I have zero faith in the judiciary system....NONE
What case are you speaking of?
 
danielmoo

danielmoo

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
in4 DMAA
 
NurseGray

NurseGray

Well-known member
Awards
0
this is correct. the pills had 288mg of DMAA each, and people took 2.
288mg is insane for DMAA let alone 2 pills. I wont go above 70mg daily. It's no wonder they had issues. Sad the FDA takes the worst case ever as a scapegoat. If I took 10 times the recomended dose of any prescription drug we would have a problem just the same.
 
NurseGray

NurseGray

Well-known member
Awards
0
smith_69

smith_69

Well-known member
Awards
0
smith_69

smith_69

Well-known member
Awards
0
I don't use it, doesn't mean I believe it isn't safe or shouldn't be sold. not at all. Honestly, I haven't used any Hi Tech products, not for any one specific reason, just had my own brands. However, even those who haven't used the brand, don't like the brand or don't like the business practices H Tech uses, they still should show support.

This case isn't going to be just about selling a supplement, its going to be ground breaking in the sense that the FDA can be challenged and supplement companies; going forward, shouldn't fear the government as they did in the past.
 
smith_69

smith_69

Well-known member
Awards
0
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I don't use it, doesn't mean I believe it isn't safe or shouldn't be sold. not at all. Honestly, I haven't used any Hi Tech products, not for any one specific reason, just had my own brands. However, even those who haven't used the brand, don't like the brand or don't like the business practices H Tech uses, they still should show support.

This case isn't going to be just about selling a supplement, its going to be ground breaking in the sense that the FDA can be challenged and supplement companies; going forward, shouldn't fear the government as they did in the past.
I am really hoping Hi-Tech wins this, not only for DMAA, but so synephrine HCl can be saved along with higher than 8% synephrine extracts.
 
Woody

Woody

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Woody

Woody

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
I am really hoping Hi-Tech wins this, not only for DMAA, but so synephrine HCl can be saved along with higher than 8% synephrine extracts.
They're claiming it's not safe but no expert testimony to establish its unsafe. Those are some big cajones the FDA is rocking.
 
Big_Spaz

Big_Spaz

Board Sponsor
Awards
1
  • Established
Agreed! Hi-Tech NEEDS to win this. Not just for their sake (and their products) but for our sake as consumers. So much has been taken away from us over the last 10 years it would be nice to actually win one.




-Spaz
 
TrainerTone

TrainerTone

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Not a user of DMAA whatsoever but if Hi Tech wins this it will be a huge victory for the supplement industry as a whole.
 

carguy123

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
no definitive answers yet, the court has yet to approve/decide for the summary judgement, but I am feeling far more positive about the future of DMAA than I was before I got to see this info!
Agree with the bolded...thought this was heading down the tubes but feel alot better about this case now.
 
Supercellular

Supercellular

Member
Awards
0
Isn't the issue here that DMAA as found in supplements is synthetic as opposed to how it is found in nature?
 

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Isn't the issue here that DMAA as found in supplements is synthetic as opposed to how it is found in nature?
I dont follow this argument. I mean, is there a non trivial difference in compound chemical structure synthetic vs "natural"? If not, if for all intents and purposes the compound itself is identical, why is this a major point of contention for the fda?
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Isn't the issue here that DMAA as found in supplements is synthetic as opposed to how it is found in nature?
I think part of the issue is that some people didn't think it existed in nature (geranium) at all. We have synthetic caffeine for example, but we know it's found in nature/plants/etc.
 

carguy123

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I dont follow this argument. I mean, is there a non trivial difference in compound chemical structure synthetic vs "natural"? If not, if for all intents and purposes the compound itself is identical, why is this a major point of contention for the fda?
There was a non-published study floating around which essentially stated that the DMAA found in supplements =/= what they extracted from geranium. Make of that what you will
 

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I think part of the issue is that some people didn't think it existed in nature (geranium) at all. We have synthetic caffeine for example, but we know it's found in nature/plants/etc.
Aye. If the source of natural coffee was to go extinct, which if media hype is to be believed is possible, would synthetic coffee be illegal?
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Aye. If the source of natural coffee was to go extinct, which if media hype is to be believed is possible, would synthetic coffee be illegal?
That wouldn't really make sense, as caffeine has been sold as a supplement for a long time, and has been present in the food supply, at high doses, for a LONG time.
 

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
That wouldn't really make sense, as caffeine has been sold as a supplement for a long time, and has been present in the food supply, at high doses, for a LONG time.
Sure. At present, the "X is synthetic and not extracted therefore X is illegal" argument makes no sense to me. The statement appears so crude it must be a misrepresentation lol...but Ive read it here on multiple occasion.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Sure. At present, the "X is synthetic and not extracted therefore X is illegal" argument makes no sense to me. The statement appears so crude it must be a misrepresentation lol...but Ive read it here on multiple occasion.
I've more often heard it as "x ingredient isn't found in nature, therefore it isn't legal."
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
C/O PricePlow

16730314_10155059439914137_8640681194259710696_n.png
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
I think part of the issue is that some people didn't think it existed in nature (geranium) at all. We have synthetic caffeine for example, but we know it's found in nature/plants/etc.
I think dmaa is being singled out because of it's connection to PA...he went thru this crap with the ingredient in 6oxo!!! the fda seems to have a hard on for Patrick, or at least that is how it appears to me.
 
Supercellular

Supercellular

Member
Awards
0
I dont follow this argument. I mean, is there a non trivial difference in compound chemical structure synthetic vs "natural"? If not, if for all intents and purposes the compound itself is identical, why is this a major point of contention for the fda?
They definitely aren't consistent in how they apply the law (fda) but I read that if found in nature it would be in a liquid state not the powdered DMAA used in preworkouts.

You gotta think that with BSL having been raised and suddenly removing DMAA from their products that hi tech will be getting the mother of all beatdowns at some point, I would guess though they won't do anything before the case due in court in case it's argued that the government acted in a way that prejudiced the case.

You would think that even if they lost the government could just decide to schedule DMAA as a controlled drug since being found in nature doesn't mean you can sell opium or cocaine.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
I think dmaa is being singled out because of it's connection to PA...he went thru this crap with the ingredient in 6oxo!!! the fda seems to have a hard on for Patrick, or at least that is how it appears to me.
Look at the post justhere4 posted. Either whoever is asking the questions is completely ignorant on the subject and laws, or they're intentionally asking nonsensical/irrelevant questions. It's almost (or exactly) like they don't know what an extract is.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Look at the post justhere4 posted. Either whoever is asking the questions is completely ignorant on the subject and laws, or they're intentionally asking nonsensical/irrelevant questions. It's almost (or exactly) like they don't know what an extract is.
like I said, I think it all comes back to the PA connection....
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
like I said, I think it all comes back to the PA connection....
I don't know about that, at least not saying it ALL comes down to PA. The few "incidents" probably played a big role in it showing up on the radar, and the subsequent crusade against it; look at the media attention and publicity centered around caffeine powder after one or two kids died from it, and now you don't really see anyone selling it anymore. It's just that, with the caffeine powder, it wasn't a big seller at all, so no one pushed it further, and just stopped selling it.
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
The USADA found DMAA in geranium oil. It is 100% present in nature beyond any reasonable doubt
 
Adizzle1

Adizzle1

Board Sponsor
Awards
1
  • Established
Its not going to be around much longer, FDA will be going hard and heavy over next 2 months, I believe they have sent out about 50 warning letters last week
 

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
The USADA found DMAA in geranium oil. It is 100% present in nature beyond any reasonable doubt
Is there anything to the argument "but you have to use the natural extract and not some synthetic facsimile!!1!"?
 
smith_69

smith_69

Well-known member
Awards
0
Its not going to be around much longer, FDA will be going hard and heavy over next 2 months, I believe they have sent out about 50 warning letters last week
of course they are going at it hard and they are going to put on a show- why? they are being taken to court.

also, whatever they send out or whatever they take has no barring or shouldnt (sorry this is the gov were talking about) be part of the case. if they find some form of dmaa that xyc - for example- is using, thats on them. this is about using a supp that has been proven to be found in natural products.

at the end of the day, hold on, wtf is Trump? this is a perfect example of tax money being wasted. do we get a refund on this
 

Similar threads


Top