possibility of fda banning the prohormones in the near future??
Paul W. Moog
> >androstene and all related products off the supplement shelves. I know alot
> >of
> >this is due to all the publicity. but cant something be done about this???
>
> Depends on a lot of things.
>
> First, if nobody is "hurt' by prohormones,
> they'll stay in the market longer. I fully
> expected ephedrine to be off the market
> by now and it has hurt some people
> (quite a few actually).
>
> Next, it depends how badly the anti-steroid
> bigwigs want to pursue the issue. Guys like
> Pope and Yesalis don't help matters.
> Twin has a HUGE lobby. If Twin decided
> to join the prohormone market, then I don't
> believe they will be banned...ever.
>
> If Twin holds fast and keeps making a stink
> about them...who knows???
>
> BK
>
> Bruce Kneller
Why would Twinlab lobby for a ban? They sell DHEA and include
androstione in at least one of their products.
They must relaize that the drug industry would love to ban all over the
counter supplements if the camel got its nose under the tent.
Their editorial stance on the andros in ANMD seems pretty bizarre.
stephanie starr
KNELLER wrote in message
>> how likely in the expert opinions will the fda( federal dumb asses) pull
>>androstene and all related products off the supplement shelves. I know
alot
>>of
>>this is due to all the publicity. but cant something be done about this???
>
>Depends on a lot of things.
>
>First, if nobody is "hurt' by prohormones,
>they'll stay in the market longer. I fully
>expected ephedrine to be off the market
>by now and it has hurt some people
>(quite a few actually).
>
>Next, it depends how badly the anti-steroid
>bigwigs want to pursue the issue. Guys like
>Pope and Yesalis don't help matters.
>Twin has a HUGE lobby. If Twin decided
>to join the prohormone market, then I don't
>believe they will be banned...ever.
>
>If Twin holds fast and keeps making a stink
>about them...who knows???
Actually I remember seeing a TwinLabs product not too long ago in their mag
that was a prohormone. On the back of the august issue there is a ad for
the "coming soon" "All natural Muscular development" products
(Duh...twinlabs products) and "Steroid Caps" is the name of the product. I
believe it contains androstenedione.
stephanie starr
Paul W. Moog wrote in message <366CAC...@erols.com>...
>Why would Twinlab lobby for a ban? They sell DHEA and include
>androstione in at least one of their products.
>They must relaize that the drug industry would love to ban all over the
>counter supplements if the camel got its nose under the tent.
>
>Their editorial stance on the andros in ANMD seems pretty bizarre.
I do not believe they ever will. It would not make financial sense for them
and Twin/ANMD is focused on profit. I still believe that they went
"natural" because they felt it would make them more money and they went
"anti-prohormone" because of the "bad" press on them with McGwire. (although
because of that sales of prohormones have increased significantly). Twin
also has an interest in a new MLM which will no doubt have a male potency
product with a prohormone in it at some point. So I doubt they would ever
look to truly encourage a ban. I think they are just trying to look good.
Majormass
KNELLER
>future??
>From: majo...@aol.com (Majormass)
>Date: Mon, Dec 7, 1998 21:34 EST
>Message-id: <19981207213453...@ng101.aol.com>
Depends on a lot of things.
First, if nobody is "hurt' by prohormones,
they'll stay in the market longer. I fully
expected ephedrine to be off the market
by now and it has hurt some people
(quite a few actually).
Next, it depends how badly the anti-steroid
bigwigs want to pursue the issue. Guys like
Pope and Yesalis don't help matters.
Twin has a HUGE lobby. If Twin decided
to join the prohormone market, then I don't
believe they will be banned...ever.
If Twin holds fast and keeps making a stink
about them...who knows???
BK
Bruce Kneller
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Post your pics or shut your face - mfw.tico.com/kneller.cfm
Tom Morley
<body...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> KNELLER wrote in message
> >> how likely in the expert opinions will the fda( federal dumb asses) pull
> >>androstene and all related products off the supplement shelves. I know
> alot
> >>of
> >>this is due to all the publicity. but cant something be done about this???
> >
> >Depends on a lot of things.
> >
> >First, if nobody is "hurt' by prohormones,
> >they'll stay in the market longer. I fully
> >expected ephedrine to be off the market
> >by now and it has hurt some people
> >(quite a few actually).
> >
> >Next, it depends how badly the anti-steroid
> >bigwigs want to pursue the issue. Guys like
> >Pope and Yesalis don't help matters.
> >Twin has a HUGE lobby. If Twin decided
> >to join the prohormone market, then I don't
> >believe they will be banned...ever.
> >
> >If Twin holds fast and keeps making a stink
> >about them...who knows???
>
> Actually I remember seeing a TwinLabs product not too long ago in their mag
> that was a prohormone. On the back of the august issue there is a ad for
> the "coming soon" "All natural Muscular development" products
> (Duh...twinlabs products) and "Steroid Caps" is the name of the product. I
> believe it contains androstenedione.
This was 7-keto DHEA.
Tom Morley |Bartleby in a singularly mild.
mor...@math.gatech.edu | firm voice, replied, " I would
tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com | prefer not to."
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~morley | -- Merman Melville
ICQ: 24798603 | (Bartleby th Scrivener)
Will Brink
majo...@aol.com (Majormass) wrote:
> how likely in the expert opinions will the fda( federal dumb asses) pull
> androstene and all related products off the supplement shelves. I know alot of
> this is due to all the publicity. but cant something be done about this???
Yes, dont sit on your ass and complain on mfw but write and call you reps
to let them know how you feel.
--
-Will Brink, http://www.brinkzone.com/
"Unless we put medical freedom into the U.S. Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover dictatorship." - Dr. Benjamin Rush, Signer of Declaration of Independence
Patrick Arnold
Majormass wrote:
> how likely in the expert opinions will the fda( federal dumb asses) pull
> androstene and all related products off the supplement shelves. I know alot of
> this is due to all the publicity. but cant something be done about this???
Kneller would have it done in a heartbeat. He believes the FDA should be given
the power to regulate the health food supplement market.
--
PA
KNELLER
>given
>the power to regulate the health food supplement market.
Yes, I do (think the FDA should regulate the
supplement market, my stance has been
pretty obvious based on my writing).
However, I will say this much. I don't
neccessarily want to see any supplements
yanked...I just want to see the shit that does
not work yanked. A few studies showing some
correlation that a supplement even remotely
does what the sellers claim would be nice.
For example, these idiots who sell these
GH secretagogues should have their shit
YANKED. No question about it.
More importantly than all this safety and
efficacy, I would like to see the FDA impose
cGMP-like requirements on all supplement
makers to ferret out the "garage based"
operations who make shit and cut stuff down.
I'd pay a little more to know that my creatine
was made in a clean environment and that
the creatine I buy today will be as pure as
the creatine I buy in 3 months.
I'd also like to make sure my 99.9% creatine
isn't really 90% creatine, 4% creatinine,
6% petrified rat shit.
BK
Bruce Kneller
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
"Shut up Steve, as usual you have no idea what you are
talking about" - Bill Roberts
Ed Sturm
KNELLER wrote in message <19981208225119...@ng13.aol.com>...
I agree with you Bruce, however I simply don't see the FDA yanking only the
crap. They will unfortunately yank the good products such as prohormones
and efedrine and anything else that is even remotely contraversal.
Ed
DSchenck
>I'd also like to make sure my 99.9% creatine
>isn't really 90% creatine, 4% creatinine,
>6% petrified rat shit.
This brings up a question I have: Will Brink wrote an article about creatine
purity, and suggests that the German-made creatine is the most pure.
When I purchase creatine, how do I know where it's been made? I can ask, but
what's to prevent the seller from lying?
Anyone want to name which brands are pure? Email me if you don't want to risk
legal action.
Thanks in advance; I really appreciate any help here.
Peace,
-- Don Schenck
Patrick Arnold
KNELLER wrote:
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: possibility of fda banning the prohormones in the near
> >future??
> >From: majo...@aol.com (Majormass)
> >Date: Mon, Dec 7, 1998 21:34 EST
> >Message-id: <19981207213453...@ng101.aol.com>
> >
> > how likely in the expert opinions will the fda( federal dumb asses) pull
> >androstene and all related products off the supplement shelves. I know alot
> >of
> >this is due to all the publicity. but cant something be done about this???
>
> Depends on a lot of things.
>
> First, if nobody is "hurt' by prohormones,
> they'll stay in the market longer. I fully
> expected ephedrine to be off the market
> by now and it has hurt some people
> (quite a few actually).
>
> Next, it depends how badly the anti-steroid
> bigwigs want to pursue the issue. Guys like
> Pope and Yesalis don't help matters.
> Twin has a HUGE lobby. If Twin decided
> to join the prohormone market, then I don't
> believe they will be banned...ever.
>
> If Twin holds fast and keeps making a stink
> about them...who knows???
>
> BK
And if your wishes come true and the FDA gets control over all supplements then
prohormones would be the first to disappear. Why doesn't this bother you?
--
PA
Patrick Arnold
Paul W. Moog wrote:
> Why would Twinlab lobby for a ban? They sell DHEA and include
> androstione in at least one of their products.
> They must relaize that the drug industry would love to ban all over the
> counter supplements if the camel got its nose under the tent.
>
> Their editorial stance on the andros in ANMD seems pretty bizarre.
TWIN says that androstenedione is dangerous and ineffective and should be pulled
from the market. At the same time they say that DHEA is perfectly fine and in
fact is a better testosterone precursor. Don't they see the contradiction? If
androstenedione gets pulled then DHEA has to get pulled. They sell alot of DHEA.
--
PA
Patrick Arnold
stephanie starr wrote:
> Paul W. Moog wrote in message <366CAC...@erols.com>...
>
> >Why would Twinlab lobby for a ban? They sell DHEA and include
> >androstione in at least one of their products.
> >They must relaize that the drug industry would love to ban all over the
> >counter supplements if the camel got its nose under the tent.
> >
> >Their editorial stance on the andros in ANMD seems pretty bizarre.
>
> I do not believe they ever will. It would not make financial sense for them
> and Twin/ANMD is focused on profit. I still believe that they went
> "natural" because they felt it would make them more money and they went
> "anti-prohormone" because of the "bad" press on them with McGwire. (although
> because of that sales of prohormones have increased significantly). Twin
> also has an interest in a new MLM which will no doubt have a male potency
> product with a prohormone in it at some point. So I doubt they would ever
> look to truly encourage a ban. I think they are just trying to look good.
Sure they would like a ban. They sell almost none of that andro fuel stuff and
prohormones are taking a big bite out of the sales of their other sports
supplements. They are dying for a ban
--
PA
Patrick Arnold
stephanie starr wrote:
> KNELLER wrote in message
> >> how likely in the expert opinions will the fda( federal dumb asses) pull
> >>androstene and all related products off the supplement shelves. I know
> alot
> >>of
> >>this is due to all the publicity. but cant something be done about this???
> >
> >Depends on a lot of things.
> >
> >First, if nobody is "hurt' by prohormones,
> >they'll stay in the market longer. I fully
> >expected ephedrine to be off the market
> >by now and it has hurt some people
> >(quite a few actually).
> >
> >Next, it depends how badly the anti-steroid
> >bigwigs want to pursue the issue. Guys like
> >Pope and Yesalis don't help matters.
> >Twin has a HUGE lobby. If Twin decided
> >to join the prohormone market, then I don't
> >believe they will be banned...ever.
> >
> >If Twin holds fast and keeps making a stink
> >about them...who knows???
>
> Actually I remember seeing a TwinLabs product not too long ago in their mag
> that was a prohormone. On the back of the august issue there is a ad for
> the "coming soon" "All natural Muscular development" products
> (Duh...twinlabs products) and "Steroid Caps" is the name of the product. I
> believe it contains androstenedione.
No it did not. It contains 7-keto DHEA which is a non-androgenic, non-anabolic,
non-estrogenic derivative of DHEA which has utility in immune system enhancement
and fat loss.
--
PA
Patrick Arnold
KNELLER wrote:
> >Kneller would have it done in a heartbeat. He believes the FDA should be
> >given
> >the power to regulate the health food supplement market.
>
> Yes, I do (think the FDA should regulate the
> supplement market, my stance has been
> pretty obvious based on my writing).
>
> However, I will say this much. I don't
> neccessarily want to see any supplements
> yanked...I just want to see the shit that does
> not work yanked. A few studies showing some
> correlation that a supplement even remotely
> does what the sellers claim would be nice.
>
Oh but give them control and they will do what they want. They WILL yank the
prohormones. YOu are living in a little fairyland Bruce with cute little
elves and big rainbows and golden skies
> For example, these idiots who sell these
> GH secretagogues should have their shit
> YANKED. No question about it.
>
> More importantly than all this safety and
> efficacy, I would like to see the FDA impose
> cGMP-like requirements on all supplement
> makers to ferret out the "garage based"
> operations who make shit and cut stuff down.
We don't all know what a cGMP requirement is Bruce and alot of other highly
specialized terms you use like this mean. We aren't all priveleged to work in
your rarefied position. BTW what is an Aldol condensation?
> BK
>
> Bruce Kneller
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> "Shut up Steve, as usual you have no idea what you are
> talking about" - Bill Roberts
--
PA
Patrick Arnold
DSchenck wrote:
I did not read the article but does Will provide proof that these impurities, at
the levels found in creatine, pose a toxicity problem? Not evidence that at
relatively high concentrations they do. If they don't then who cares?
--
PA
DSchenck
>
>I did not read the article but does Will provide proof that these impurities,
>at
>the levels found in creatine, pose a toxicity problem? Not evidence that at
>relatively high concentrations they do. If they don't then who cares?
Patrick --
Will does say that it is unknown as to whether or not the levels may prove to
be toxic. In fact, he does say something to the effect of "better safe than
sorry". He cautions the reader to err on the side of safety; I can't fault
that.
Peace,
-- Don
J6nMerc
PA writes:
>We don't all know what a cGMP requirement is Bruce and alot of other highly
specialized terms you use like this mean. We aren't all priveleged to work in
your rarefied position.
I believe what Bruce is referring to is the Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP).
GMP is used world wide by manufactures and is supposed to guarantee that
products meet a certain [high] standard of manufacturing.
What this means is that a govt. agency or one funded by them (FDA etc) will
check out a plant to ensure proper quality controls, sanitary conditions, etc.
etc. ... problem I have with this is usually companies themselves have to fork
out the $$$ so that the agency can inspect them, upon the regulatory body's
insistence. In some cases this could prove to be a costly situation, something
drug companies can wave under the table, but lesser sup. companies can often
not afford (at least this is the case in some other countries where this is
very active right now.) It is IMO, while the concept is good, another way for
the regulatory bodies (FDA, etc) to make another buck.
KNELLER
>And if your wishes come true and the FDA gets control over all supplements
>then
>prohormones would be the first to disappear. Why doesn't this bother you?
>
>
Pat,
All I want is for some group (maybe not the
FDA - but you propose an alternative) to
do the following (in this order of priority):
1) make sure what is in the bottle is on the
label. This is by far, THE SINGLE most
important thing in my opinion.
2) evaluate supplements that make outlandish
claims, claims that can't possibly work.
Would you use that homeopathic testosterone?
Would you? Be honest? Would some
dumb 18 year old reading an ad in Ironman?
See the difference?
A little policing would help. Too much policing would be bad. I think people
have a right to choose, but I also think people have a right to know what they
are ingesting and to be protected from outright fraud.
I would NOT be in favor for a ban on prohormones (you can quote me on that,
Pat, OK?!?).
I would be in favor for testing of purity of companies that make/sell them. If
you sell a
relatively pure product Pat (and I think you do) then why are you against this?
This can only help you. It would ferret out the the "dirtier" side of your
competition and would only increase LPJ sales.
Why are you so paranoid about this?
Would it really kill you to fork over $500 or
$1000 every couple of months to have some
independent agency test and verify your
products at random? Think of the marketing bonanza this would be for you
when your stuff tests out better than anyone elses!!!
THINK for a minute!!!
BK
Bruce Kneller
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
I may be fatter than I'd like to be but chances are I am
stonger than you and look better than you in a t-shirt.
mfw.tico.com/kneller.cfm
Steve Kidwell
<parn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>KNELLER wrote:
>
>> >Kneller would have it done in a heartbeat. He believes the FDA should be
>> >given
>> >the power to regulate the health food supplement market.
>>
>> Yes, I do (think the FDA should regulate the
>> supplement market, my stance has been
>> pretty obvious based on my writing).
>>
>> However, I will say this much. I don't
>> neccessarily want to see any supplements
>> yanked...I just want to see the shit that does
>> not work yanked. A few studies showing some
>> correlation that a supplement even remotely
>> does what the sellers claim would be nice.
>>
>
>Oh but give them control and they will do what they want. They WILL yank the
>prohormones. YOu are living in a little fairyland Bruce with cute little
>elves and big rainbows and golden skies
The FDA can't even regulate drugs effectively damnit! They approve
drugs and then people get killed by those damn drugs left and right.
Viagra anyone? SHit! The last thing the FDA needs is to be given the
power or responsibility to regulate anything else. Nobody is dying
from prohormone use or even being hurt or injured. Pulling them off
of the market or giving the FDA the power to pull them off the market
for no reason at all is simply ludicrous and just making government
bigger. The FDA would much like to pull everything off the market,
especially things that are beneficial to people's health like vitamin
E and vitamin C. If you guys think that the prohormones even remotely
cut into the dollars that these two supplements do you are sadly
mistaken.
Bruce: Do you really want to have to go to your doctor every six
months, pay an office visit and then visit your local pharmacy and pay
an outrageous fortune for some protein powder or vitamins? That is
precisely what you are arguing for and you're too narrow minded to
realize it.
If the FDA wins this, Americans lose. All Americans. If the FDA
wins, freedom and the free market lose. We may as well just become a
freakin' communist country like the liberals want. Why stop at
supplements? Let's let the government tell us what we can and cannot
read. Let's let them tell us what we can and cannot watch. Let's let
them tell us what we can and cannot do with our careers. Let the left
wing ass-kissers stand in line 6 hours for a screwed up Turkey at
thanksgiving and then we'll see how well they like
communism/socialism. Bruce, you call yourself a republican, but
you're either the dumbest one i've ever met or you simply have no idea
of the ramifications for your arguements.
That's what I think of your regulation stance sir Marx/Kneller.
We're regulated enough. We don't need anymore regulation. We need
less actually.
OK. To hell with it. I'm going off. I've had a shit morning and I'm
going off.
You know what makes me sick to the core of my soul? The never-ending
hypocrisy of the left wing liberals who are in power positions in this
country and how their flock of blind sheep follow them regardless of
the ridiculous and absurdity of their positions. What am I talking
about?
The Clinton scandal of course. OK. Here is what the left wing and
feminazis all argued for: Sexual Harrassment in the workplace has to
be eliminated. The throw extremely vague interpretations out of what
sexual harrassment is to the point of everyone being afraid to comment
on someone's new outfit.
OK. OK. I agree that women don't deserve to be harrassed. As a
matter of fact, if a woman is harrassed, I would be the first person
in the asskicking line for the offender. Women don't deserve to be
sent to work worried about any form of abuse. We had sufficient laws
out there to prevent these things. We didn't need some vague-assed
addition which opens up room for all kinds of frivelous law suits.
However, the left wing got it passed under the cover of "purity and
kindness." It's been abused so many times it makes me want to puke.
However, I can live with it.
Now! NOW! Their supreme leader is the most guilty of the guilty
regarding sexual harrassment! Clinton has harrassed damn near every
woman who has ever worked for him. He has taken advantage of his
power position and taken advantage of young innocent (innocent due to
their unstable emotional conditions) girls. What does the left wing
say about it? What do the *FEMINISTS* say about it?
Lying about sex under oath is not a high crime or misdemeanor. We are
all sick of hearing about this. The president has done sooooo much
good for the country, that we can overlook his abuse of women in this
case! We can overlook the fact that he is in direct opposition to
everything we stand for. We don't care that he has walked all over
his wife. We don't care that he took part in the most kinky of kinky
sexual episodes with an intern half his age. We don't care that he
tried to force Paula Jones to do unwanted sexual favors for him. We
don't care that he groped Kathleen Willey. In effect they are saying,
"We really don't care about women at all." Where is N.O.W.? Where
are all of the feminazi and left wing feminists protesters? Where are
the picket signs in front of the White House?
Now for all of you liberal/gays out here in MFW and I know about all
of the gays here are liberals, check this out. This affects you too.
That is really the only way to get you to stand up and take notice.
If it directly has something to do with a gay person. The panel
reviewing impeachment of Clinton heard testimony from a *Lesbian* who
went to jail for lying about sex under oath. She went to jail damnit!
Is that right for her to go to jail for something far less severe than
Clinton and then you to stand up and defend him?
Why doesn't anyone in the left have the balls to stand up and say,
"Jesus! This is enough! He doesn't represent us. He doesn't even
represent the human race for God's sakes!"
Why? Do you really want to know why? Because liberals stand for
nothing other than what their current situation is. Their efforts
aren't noble and can change with whatever arises. The biggest left
wing protester against destroying the forests lives in a freakin' huge
log cabin for cryin' out loud!
I'm done. I told you I was going off. :-)
>--
>PA
-------------------------------------
Steve Kidwell, 1998 AAU Mr. USA
Midwest Sports Supplements
http://midwestsupplements.com
Natural Physique Systems
http://nps.ticz.com
William Greene
Steve Kidwell <skid...@ticz.com> wrote:
[snip: liberal this, communist that, blah blah, blah...]
Whoever said it was right, it's time to change the melon.
J6nMerc
>Would it really kill you to fork over $500 or
$1000 every couple of months to have some
independent agency test and verify your
products at random? Think of the marketing bonanza this would be for you
when your stuff tests out better than anyone elses!!!
The problem with this is that we then assume that the testing agency is THEE
end all for proving a product works or meets it's label claims.
Many products that WORK (kidwell hinted at vit. C and E for example) cannot be
shown to work by the existing medically/scientifically approved methods. Does
this mean the product doesn't work? Maybe. But maybe not. The proof of such
things is outside the existing means of testing in many cases. Let's take
something older than western medicine itself. Acupuncture, or various herbal
treatments that work - end of story - now because science can't PROVE that it
works do we discredit it?
IMO the testing methods that exist for some forms of product testing are
legitimate, they just aren't broad enough yet to encompass the dozens of
working products out their in the "supplement" industry.
Nor do I really believe you can get the bias or politics out of the issue
either. Look at the situation up in Canada... DHEA banned. ProHormones
banned. Melatonin restricted. etc. etc. etc.
I smell CODEX stronger than anything else in the state of Denmark...
Steve Kidwell
<william...@msfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
Yeah, Bil, I think that was stated by another left wing pansy. Good
one! :) I see what class you consider yourself in. I'd be awful
proud 'o that.
KNELLER
>near future??
>From: skid...@ticz.com (Steve Kidwell)
>Date: Wed, Dec 9, 1998 11:43 EST
>Message-id: <366ea04a...@news.newsguy.com>
I am guilty as charged...this will no doubt
create a monster off-topic thread about
Bill Clinton, cigars and interns.
I should have forseen this.
My apologies,
stephanie starr
Patrick Arnold wrote in message <366E9BBE...@ix.netcom.com>...
Oops- I stand corrected- I went back and looked at the advertisement and you
are right on that one. I am still not convinced that it would serve them to
lobby so heavily for pro-hormones to become banned though.... their recent
acquisition of an MLM that will no doubt have male potency products very
soon would keep the company of Twin from wanting to jeopardize their profits
there.
Phil Stankey
They'll get my Nor-Andro when they pry it from my cold dead fingers because when Nor-Andro is outlawed, only outlaws will have Nor-Andro
Watson Davis
>
> KNELLER wrote:
>
> > >Kneller would have it done in a heartbeat. He believes the FDA should be
> > >given
> > >the power to regulate the health food supplement market.
> >
> > Yes, I do (think the FDA should regulate the
> > supplement market, my stance has been
> > pretty obvious based on my writing).
> >
> > However, I will say this much. I don't
> > neccessarily want to see any supplements
> > yanked...I just want to see the shit that does
> > not work yanked. A few studies showing some
> > correlation that a supplement even remotely
> > does what the sellers claim would be nice.
> >
>
> Oh but give them control and they will do what they want. They WILL yank the
> prohormones. YOu are living in a little fairyland Bruce with cute little
> elves and big rainbows and golden skies
COOL!!!! Does that mean he's doing the same drugs I... er, I mean...
uh, WASH is doing?
Watson (the pencil neck) Davis
TrygveF
Damn straight! Look at what happens when regulatory agencies run amok. Isn't
Canada the place where you have to get a script for amino-acid tablets?
Here's my opinion of the FDA thing: Originally they did start out as a useful
and valid organization back in the days when people were mixing turpentine and
castor oil and selling it as magic cure-alls.
But as drug companies came into prominence, a situation has arrived where the
fda considers drug companies as providing the only effacious substances to the
public. Just as the medical community has been geared to treating, not
preventing disease, so has it come to rely upon the drugs produced by the major
drug companies as being the only valid way of treating such diseases (besides
surgery). The irony is that many produced drugs work by imitating what
"natural" substances do. The simple fact is that the huge drug companies have
enormous pull in the FDA, perhaps not on a company by company basis, but as an
overall "voice of authority"
Case in point: Years back the ESSENTIAL amino acid Tryptophan was all the rage
becuase it was a natural, cheap, and safe way to cause serotinin release in the
body. This has a relaxing and mood stabilizing effect. It also works as an
effective sleeping aid. The only problem is that since it was an amino acid
it couldn't be trademarked by the drug companies and it was very cheap compared
to commercial drugs. Tryptophan soon became so popular that it was viewed as a
threat to the maker of drugs like valium and Prozac. These companies put
pressure on the fda to ban it, and the fda began to look for a scape-goat.
Eventuall they found it when a Japense company sent out a shipment of Trypto
with contaminated binders and fillers. Some people supposedly got sick, and
suddenly the fda has their excuse to pull Trypto from the market PERMANENTLY!!
Don't forget that this is an essential amino acid required to sustain life! If
trypto is soo bad, why do companies still put it in baby food!?
Nowdays with more public acceptance and awareness of suppliments, there would
probably be such a furor that the fda would be forced to justify their actions
and put it back on the market, but all this happened before suppliments became
such a hot topic.
Same thing with the ECA stuff. Diet drug companies DO NOT want ECA products
available, because it might damage their market share. Why should people get to
buy ECA when they can come to us for Redux/Phen-Pehn and Meridia for five
times as much money? The fact that some idiot teenagers might take a whole
bottle and kill themsleves is irrelevant, because those same idiot teenagers do
things like sniff glue and play chicken with oncoming trains. A certain
bone-headed segment of the population will always abuse substances, legal or
not. Look at how many people overdose on aspirin, yet since that product has
been around for so long and is so entrenched, the fda won't ever consider
taking it off the market.
Face it, the fda and American medical community have been wrong on so many
things it makes me laugh. From "steroids don't work and will kill you
instantly" to "it's not safe and advisable to take vitamins and anti-oxidants"
Lately I have been reading how carbohydrates and refined sugars, not fat, are
linked to cancer, heart disease, etc. Thus the popularity of low-carb diets
especially for things like cholesteral control and diabetes. But since the AMA
has sided itself firmly with the high-carb low-fat approach, any evidence to
the contrary is ignored, condemned, and derided. They are too proud and too
arrogant to admit that maybe they need to look closer at the whole issue.
To me the actions and opinions of the fda and entire medical community are to
be viewed with extreme suspect. People have to realize that doctors and
scientists are people like everbody else. They have their own biases, petty
jealousies, arrogance, greed, etc. My aunt, an extremely well respected and
somewhat famous radiologist in the field of breast cancer has said many times
that the entire medical community is incredibly petty and riddled with politics
that often get in the way of proper healthcare.
just my 02cents worth.
-TJ
KNELLER
>Date: 12/10/98 3:33 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <19981210033337...@ng-fd2.aol.com>
Fine then...next time you have a bacterial
infection, like strep throat, go load up on
herbal teas and echinaccea and skip the
antibiotics. Or if you come down with
a disease like MS, just load up of
phenylalanine and other "neuro" aminos
and skip the b-interferon.
It's so easy to pull one or two (or even a
dozen) "yeah but look what they did HERE"
cases. There are THOUSANDS of useful
drugs available, made by the pharma/biotech.
Next time you have a massive cerebral
embolus, screw the heparn, screw the tPA,
just have someone feed you some white
willow bark extract.
For sure there are good compounds in nature.
Many useful compounds.
But if you are one of these tree hugging
hippie freaks who would abandon science
to go "au naturale" then take your fucking
laetrille and choak on it.
Like the LEF never distorted a study to
make themselves look good? Get a clue.
Supplements are a HUGE business too.
The hippocrisy is sickening.
"Yeah man, natural is better".
Tell me, what's the better - the ephedrine
alkaloid you get in Ma Huang or the
ephedrine that is synthetically made?
TrygveF
<<But if you are one of these tree hugging
hippie freaks who would abandon science
to go "au natural" then take your fucking
laetrille and choak on it.
>>
Woahh... easy there. I don't know where you got the idea that I was a "hippie
freak", but you couldn't be more mistaken. I am an arch republican white male
(with a military haircut no less!) I'm about the farthest thing possible from a
hippie.
Make no mistake, I'm the first guy to champion that science has made life in
the twentieth century better than it has ever been in the history of mankind.
Of course when I get strep-throat, my ass is down at the pharmacy buying some
penicillin. You think if I my appendix bursts that I'm not going to go get it
operated on? Please!
But the points that Steve Kidwell raised, and which I agreed with and expanded
upon, is that over-regulation by the government (specifically by the FDA) is
bad. My own point was that the FDA, far from being a non-biased and completely
nonpolitical force, is actually heavily influenced/tainted by its relationship
with major drug companies its own belief in the complete and unassailable
superiority of manufactured drugs.
You completely avoided these arguments and instead took the extreme view of
attacking me by implying that I was somehow anti-science. I'm not anti-science,
I'm anti-over zealous government regulation.
People should have the right to use drugs and or supplements as they wish so
long as the substances are not fragrantly dangerous. These same people should
be held accountable for their abuse of drugs, not coddled by the "victim
mentality" of modern day America. The FDA often seems to embody the liberal
Clintonesque forces in the government who believe that the government should be
our parents, and that they, and only they, are capable of telling us how to run
our own lives. I feel that sort of thinking is dangerous because it raises
generations of people who look first and foremost to the government to provide
them with answers in their lives. Rather than step in and control every aspect
of our lives, I would prefer that the government back-off somewhat and allow
states and local communities to decide more of their own course of action.
So rather than make inflamed accusations against the people who disagree with
your pro-FDA stance, let's keep this discussion to the point at hand: the
merits of FDA regulation in the supplement industry.
Besides, I am most grateful that educated scientists like yourself have taken
the subject of sports enhancing pharmacology seriously and have tried to inject
some truth and original thought into the stew of AMA inspired misconception. I
respect you and your knowledge of pharmacology, so let's keep this civil and
agree to disagree.
-TJ
Patrick Arnold
People can pick out minor impurities in ANYTHING and say "we don't know
the toxicity of this so you better buy this brand instead". I don't
like the precedent that is setting.
--
PA
Patrick Arnold
>
> Well according to Bruce I am the dumb one here but...
>
> PA writes:
>
> >We don't all know what a cGMP requirement is Bruce and alot of other highly
> specialized terms you use like this mean. We aren't all priveleged to work in
> your rarefied position.
>
> I believe what Bruce is referring to is the Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP).
> GMP is used world wide by manufactures and is supposed to guarantee that
> products meet a certain [high] standard of manufacturing.
Woops, I know what that is. never mind
--
PA
PusBag
>near future??
>From: Patrick Arnold <parn...@ix.netcom.c
> If
>androstenedione gets pulled then DHEA has to get pulled. They sell alot of
>DHEA.
>--
>PA
PA, is this from the BP
school of marketing? One
of those stock-up now becasuse
it will be banned. Was this your
or A.Scott's idea?
PB
+ +
>>From: Patrick Arnold <parn...@ix.netcom.c
>> If
>>androstenedione gets pulled then DHEA has to get pulled. They sell alot
of
>>DHEA.
>>--
>>PA
>PA, is this from the BP
>school of marketing? One
>of those stock-up now becasuse
>it will be banned. Was this your
>or A.Scott's idea?
>PB
above PA
quote isn't to get people to run out and stock up on these products. He is
pointing out
that a company lobbying for FDA regulation sells an even shittier prohomone
than those
he peddles. If his get yanked, so will theirs. PA doen't want to pay to
ensure his product
doesn't have arsenic or other goodies in it, nor does he want the FDA to
test whether it
has any efficacy at all. Plus, if prohormones did get pulled, he'd have a
lucrative career of
selling fruit on the freeway to look forward to. This is why he is
virulently opposed to any
oversight whatsoever.
--
sebaceous_cyst: knows PA's angle and on-topic as usual.
**** Posted from RemarQ Communities, Inc - http://www.remarq.com -
Discussions Start Here(tm) ****
DSchenck
>People can pick out minor impurities in ANYTHING and say "we don't know
>the toxicity of this so you better buy this brand instead". I don't
>like the precedent that is setting.
With all due respect, Will did not mention any specific brands. He did point
out -- in a table -- that the German-manufactured creatine contained the lowest
amount of contaminants.
I do see your point. You have to remember; idiots like me are not educated in
biochemistry, and therefore rely on experts that we can trust to help us out.
Things that "sound" reasonable to us usually influence our decisions. That's
all I'm saying.
Now get me talking about Visual Basic or RPG/ILE programming, and I can rule
the day! <g>
Peace,
-- Don Schenck
Resident AOL idiot