Is DMAA actually found in nature?

[VaughnTrue]

Well the other day I and some fellows on this forum were politely discussing DMAA and why it should or shouldn't be considered DSHEA compliant. I was accused of "wishing the magical plant that contains DMAA into existence".


Maybe I'm REALLY good at wishing? Or maybe, JUST MAYBE(oh man, these capitalizations feel glorious) Hi-Tech wasn't going to foolishly invest millions of dollars unless it had "evidence it thought would show DMAA to be DSHEA compliant" like I had stated numerous times. Up until tonight no one in the public had access to what that evidence may be, but it looks like the tip of that ice berg is now being uncovered...


I'm on mobile so I can't format the entire article to look pretty, reps and a free DMAA product of their choice to whoever can help!


https://blog.priceplow.com/dmaa-supplements/geranium

[YouMadOrMirin]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682735/

maybe?

[VaughnTrue]

If DMAA IS found in geranium oil, and geranium oil is GRAS, all constituents therefor are as well...no?

If DMAA IS found in geranium oil as this evidence would suggest, can anyone provide any reasoning on why they believe it should NOT be DSHEA compliant?

[TheFugitive]

Check this out

http://essentialhealth.com/2012/09/g...ils-some-uses/

[blokpost]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3512447/

Looks interesting.

[DamonX]

in 4 further news

[blokpost]

I've noticed in some supps, 1,4 dmaa, instead of 1,3. At first, I thought that was just misprint, but in this article, both 1,3 & 1,4 were counted.
Does anyone have any info about 1,4?

[VaughnTrue]

HiTechs upcoming press release regarding this matter:

ATLANTA, Feb. 24, 2016 (Submitted to PRNewswire) � There has been a lot of questions surrounding recent events concerning DMAA that Hi-Tech felt it needed to address. For instance, the raid on Blackstone was not based upon DMAA, but dealt with records they were seeking going back to 2012 in relation to their dealings with Duracap Labs (a company whose principals were indicted for steroids months ago). Mark Lobliner and Ron Kramer, along with others, have insinuated that Hi-Tech was losing its battle against FDA on DMAA, which is the furthest thing from the truth!

Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals sued the FDA November 5th, 2013 in Federal Court- Case 1:13-cv-01747, claiming the agency bypassed standard rule-making procedures in favor of a bullying campaign to try to force companies to destroy their products containing 1,3 dimethylamylamine, or DMAA. �DMAA has existed in the food supply for many years,� the complaint states. �Hi-Tech has sold over a million bottles of dietary supplement products containing this ingredient without any adverse event reports.� A key issue in this case is whether the substance 1,3-Dimethylamylamine HCl (�DMAA�) is a naturally occurring constituent of the geranium plant.

Hi-Tech has presented two experts about DMAA having been found in geranium. In August of 2012, an article was published in Analytical Chemistry Insights by Charlie Li, which found that DMAA was in geraniums. J.S. Li, M. Chen, and Z.C. Li, Identification and Quantification of Dimethylamylamine in Geranium by Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry, Analytical Chemistry Insights 2012:7 47-58. It also presented Dr. Paul Simone who published Analysis and Confirmation of 1,3-DMAA and 1,4-DMAA in Geranium Plants Using High Performance Liquid Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry� Hi-Tech has also presented expert testimony of the safety of DMAA by Dr.Mitchell Elkind, Dr. Marvin Heuer, and Dr. Matthew Lee. Hi-Tech filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which we expect to win that will settle the case once and for all.

[VaughnTrue]

Notice the last sentence KDD...


WHO filed for the summary judgement?

[VaughnTrue]

The saga of the Government�s war against DMAA begins sometime in 2010. Somewhere in that time frame, Amy Eichner, an official of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (�USADA�), with virtually no training or expertise in chemistry became convinced that DMAA presented a health risk to athletes. Eichner took her concerns to the Food and Drug Administration (�FDA�) on October 13, 2010. Dr. Robert J. Moore, an FDA supervisor in the Division of Dietary Supplements, advised Eichner that DMAA �is found in many plants,� that plants are dietary ingredients under DSHEA, and that DMAA �appears to be a dietary ingredient under [DSHEA] because it is a constituent of another dietary ingredient (i.e., a plant).� Wenik Decl., Ex. 8, October 2010 through April 2011 email correspondence between Amy Eichner, Robert Moore, and Daniel Fabricant regarding the presence of DMAA in geranium. Later that same day, Dr. Moore advised Eichner that DMAA could be found in geranium oil which had �a fairly long history of food use as an essential oil� and also provided her the cite to a 1996 scientific study by Ping that had detected DMAA in geranium oil.

Things did not go as Eichner had planned. On May 27, 2011, she told Drs. Khan and ElSohly that she had heard a rumor that other researchers had detected DMAA in geranium oil and she was concerned how this might affect their efforts to lobby FDA regarding DMAA. Dr. ElSohly responded by informing Eichner that he and his colleagues had developed a very sensitive method to detect DMAA and that they had indeed found low levels of DMAA in the geranium samples that Eichner had supplied to them. Undaunted, Eichner and her colleague at the USADA, Larry Bowers, agreed with Drs. ElSohly and Khan that the issue could be avoided by simply raising the detection limit in the published article so that a finding that no DMAA was detected could be reported. It also appears that Eichner had a hand in having other test results that showed DMAA to be contained in geraniums suppressed from public view. A team at the University of Texas, including Ying Zhang and Daniel Armstrong, was also looking at the question of whether DMAA was in geraniums in the spring of 2012. Somehow Eichner gained access to an unpublished version of Zhang and Armstrong�s results and she forwarded it to Drs. Khan and ElSohly. The version of the Zhang/Armstrong article of 2012 that Eichner reviewed reported the detection of DMAA in significant amounts in two of eight geranium samples. However, once in the hands of Drs. Khan and ElSohly, the published version reported no detection of DMAA. Dr. Khan was deposed on October 26, 2016. During the deposition, it became clear that Dr. Khan�s opinions were based upon facts and data that the Government failed to produce to Hi-Tech in discovery. As Dr. Khan admitted during his deposition, during the course of the Multi-Center Study, testing conducted by the Shanghai Institute revealed that DMAA was detected in some of the samples tested.

Government Lawyer Obstruction in the DMAA Case

The Government�s persecution of DMAA and Hi-Tech is outside the pale of the basic premise of ethics and Hi-Tech asked the Court to look into whether a show cause (contempt) hearing is needed due to their misconduct. The government prosecutors have gone to great lengths to hide the fact that the declarations and reports of Dr. Khan. The government prosecutors spent months trying to prevent Hi-Tech from gaining this damning information to use during its case and the deposition of Dr. Khan. Instead of doing what a prosecutor is in office to do, which is seek the truth � government lawyers have obstructed Hi-Tech and its lawyers at every turn to protect its chief witness. Hi-Tech finds it hard to understand the actions by those who have sworn to uphold our laws and [t]he government, which are clearly treading in very shallow water here.

The government�s investigation and prosecution of Hi-Tech has been permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated Hi-Tech�s defense and its experts testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government�s key witness. Hi-Tech likely could have filed an early motion to dismiss and saved itself over a million dollars in legal fees and expert witness fees.

The recent stunning revelations of the prosecutors withholding evidence finally makes sense why they obstructed Hi-Tech at every turn when it has tried to get records from the University of Mississippi. The government�s lawyers allowed false declarations and reports from Dr. Khan to be introduced into evidence although he knew they were inaccurate. We expect the Court will may find at some point that there may be sanctions against the government�s lawyers for their egregious actions.

�This is not about mistakes,� countered Jared Wheat, CEO of Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals. �This is not about negligence. This is not about incompetence. This is about intentional wrongdoing.� Hi-Tech looks forward to its long awaited victory in the coming months, and felt it was long overdue to share with our consumers how this case evolved.

Oh gawd

[kissdadookie]

Well the other day I and some fellows on this forum were politely discussing DMAA and why it should or shouldn't be considered DSHEA compliant. I was accused of "wishing the magical plant that contains DMAA into existence".


Maybe I'm REALLY good at wishing? Or maybe, JUST MAYBE(oh man, these capitalizations feel glorious) Hi-Tech wasn't going to foolishly invest millions of dollars unless it had "evidence it thought would show DMAA to be DSHEA compliant" like I had stated numerous times. Up until tonight no one in the public had access to what that evidence may be, but it looks like the tip of that ice berg is now being uncovered...


I'm on mobile so I can't format the entire article to look pretty, reps and a free DMAA product of their choice to whoever can help!


https://blog.priceplow.com/dmaa-supplements/geranium

Do you recall who funded that study? It was peer reviewed so I wonder if the original was reviewed and if the peer review process had anything to do with the changes between the original and the published version of the study.

By the way. The published study I wouldn't call BS as they changed the detection threshold to 10 ppb (which is already trace amounts level of detection). Look at the original (which iirc did see before awhile back, I hinted at it in my posts in the other defunct thread, so claiming that this is evidence that nobody knew about before is incorrect, now the emails, those could be problematic for the FDA), detection was less that 10 ppb and supposedly only from two plants. This still does not make the plant as a suitable source for extraction by any means (which would support what I said earlier in the now closed thread).

I was apparently wrong about who filed for the summar judgement though.

Note: Yeah, pretty sure myself and Rob were looking at the same unpublished study earlier this week. So the unpublished version was not hidden in any way since we found it so easily.

[VaughnTrue]

There you have it folks. KDD is now head of legal counsel for both the FDA and HiTech.

[LoudyRowdy]

Inb4 a certain CEO takes down his video(s)

[kissdadookie]

There you have it folks. KDD is now head of legal counsel for both the FDA and HiTech.

Continue jesting there. Anybody that read my posts in the other thread would clearly have noticed that I based my posts off of existing facts whilst you at the time just tried to backtrack and deflect.

Like I've mentioned earlier, both myself and Rob had noticed the unpublished version of the study show the minuscule trace amounts of DMAA (I even directly addressed that). My posts are still there, feel free to go back and read them.

[VaughnTrue]

Man, I wish you had told me about this first! Hi-Tech could've saved literalmillions of dollars and avoided countless wasted hours if only we had employed the legal services of KDD. He was able to see what the FDA was hiding despite it being inaccessible to some of the most high powered lawyers in the country without court ordered release of that info. Your google scholar account must be set to "platinum edition"!


I just told Jared to fire the entire legal team and got you all set up bro. See you Monday morning in Norcross GA

[carguy123]

I've noticed in some supps, 1,4 dmaa, instead of 1,3. At first, I thought that was just misprint, but in this article, both 1,3 & 1,4 were counted.
Does anyone have any info about 1,4?

Literally could not find anything on it. Vein Nutrition (on another board) is suppose to be coming out with a pre with both 1,3 and 1,4. They claim 1,4 takes longer to kicker in but effects lasts longer then 1,3. They are/were doing 60mg 1,3 and 60mg 1,4. Where else have you seen it? This is the first product I am aware of (expect Veins fat burner has it also)

[kissdadookie]

Man, I wish you had told me about this first! Hi-Tech could've saved literalmillions of dollars and avoided countless wasted hours if only we had employed the legal services of KDD. He was able to see what the FDA was hiding despite it being inaccessible to some of the most high powered lawyers in the country without court ordered release of that info. Your google scholar account must be set to "platinum edition"!


I just told Jared to fire the entire legal team and got you all set up bro. See you Monday morning in Norcross GA

Again, I haven't deleted any of my previous posts. You want to mince my words and inject comic relief, feel free. The posts however still haven't changed and anybody who wishes to look at what I posted can go back and read those posts. I'm still waiting on your opinion of Snorks though.

[VaughnTrue]

No major wall of text. No actual discussion on the evidence now coming to light for the public to see for the first time. Just pure nonsense as usual out of KDD.

This was fun. Let's do it again some time!

[eatyourspinach]

Lol'd at Priceplow's "Who is Zachary S. Breitbach?" like he doesn't have any credentials. https://scholar.google.com/citations...=0&pagesize=20

[kissdadookie]

No major wall of text. No actual discussion on the evidence now coming to light for the public to see for the first time. Just pure nonsense as usual out of KDD.

This was fun. Let's do it again some time!

Read what it says in the conclusion here from the unpublished version:



What? The DMAA in supplements are synthetic is what they concluded? What? Oh my. Why didn't PricePlow point this out? Why didn't you point this out Vaughn? o.O

The 3rd point in that conclusion is very interesting don't you think Vaughn?

[VaughnTrue]

Read what it says in the conclusion here from the unpublished version:



What? The DMAA in supplements are synthetic is what they concluded? What? Oh my. Why didn't PricePlow point this out? Why didn't you point this out Vaughn? o.O

The vitamin C in every single dietary supplement is synthetic as well...is the FDA going to ban that and every other vitamin?

Creatine monohydrate? Synthesized. What, did you think they were extracting it from "prime beef cuts" like carnivore protein?

Beta alanine? Synthesized.

EVERYTHING except explicit extracted ingredients are synthesized.



How does HiTech list DMAA on its labels? As an extract or as an individual compound? Why would I point this out when our labels clearly indicate the compound is synthesized, along with every stimulant in the industry like caffeine?

[kissdadookie]

The vitamin C in every single dietary supplement is synthetic as well...is the FDA going to ban that and every other vitamin?

Creatine monohydrate? Synthesized. What, did you think they were extracting it from "prime beef cuts" like carnivore protein?

Beta alanine? Synthesized.

EVERYTHING except explicit extracted ingredients are synthesized.



How does HiTech list DMAA on its labels? As an extract or as an individual compound?

The synthesized vitamin C is identical to what can be found in nature in abundant amounts. Look at point 3 of that conclusion. Why did you skip over point 3?

[VaughnTrue]

What is the threshold as outlined by the FDA as what constitutes something being found "enough" in nature to make it DSHEA?

Your original claim was that DMAA was not found in nature, thus the "magical plant" conjecture.

Now it's that it's not found at high enough quantities? Oh man.

[Rushie]

I use DMAA occasionally but would gladly see it go away if it means Jared Wheat gets locked up for good and that his name never gets mentioned again.

Personally, I couldn't sleep at night if I knew I worked for a crook like Jared Wheat. Thankfully, that will never happen. Still can't believe there are people who are actually glad and proud to work for that guy.

[kissdadookie]

What is the threshold as outlined by the FDA as what constitutes something being found "enough" in nature to make it DSHEA?

Your original claim was that DMAA was not found in nature, thus the "magical plant" conjecture.

Now it's that it's not found at high enough quantities? Oh man.

I stated the quantities issue in my previous posts. I didn't sit there changing the goal post.

Again, look at number 3 in that conclusion from the unpublished version of the study.

Let me illustrate how that is important. Vitamin C. There's two forms which are chemically identical but molecularly different. The ones in supplements can be synthesized or found in nature. The other form, it does not occur in nature and if we were to ingest it, our bodies has no use for it.

I find it funny that you not only ignored the Snorks issue but now you seemingly have selectively blocked out point three in that conclusion in the unpublished study. o.O

I also find it hilarious that you are now insinuating that I am moving the goal post yet I've addressed the quantities point in my previous posts. You can go back and review them, you likely wouldn't even need to use the search function that you seemingly dislike so much.

[Misctake7]

Oh, so DMAA is not going to get banned. GREAT! Curious to see how other companies might get involved in DMAA if deemed legit.


As far as the bickering ITT

[VaughnTrue]

Oh, so DMAA is not going to get banned. GREAT! Curious to see how other companies might get involved in DMAA if deemed legit.


As far as the bickering ITT

To be clear, this isn't saying the FDA still isn't going to push its weight around and find a way to ban it. It is simply saying it IS conclusively found in nature, despite so many armchair chemists here and elsewhere claiming "only a magical plant contains DMAA". That and the fact that the FDA purposefully modified the sensitivity of the HPLC to show "none detected" when they knew it was there.

Curious to see what additional info is released and how this case turns out

[fbcpastormk]

Just saw this on Instagram this morning. In for more information

[eatyourspinach]

Is the reason for the study being published vs. unpublished peer review?

[kissdadookie]

To be clear, this isn't saying the FDA still isn't going to push its weight around and find a way to ban it. It is simply saying it IS conclusively found in nature, despite so many armchair chemists here and elsewhere claiming "only a magical plant contains DMAA". That and the fact that the FDA purposefully modified the sensitivity of the HPLC to show "none detected" when they knew it was there.

Curious to see what additional info is released and how this case turns out

Armchair chemists eh? Never claimed to be one but here's what I did that you failed to do, read.

Again, why are you ignoring point three in the conclusion of the unpublished study? You guys are using that unpublished study as part of your evidence after all. Why are you ignoring such a glaring and important detail? It's not as if it's written in a hard to understand language or verbiage.