Is DMAA actually found in nature?

[eatyourspinach]

The constant question is whether if DMAA is actually found in nature?


But, what really is nature?

Some may argue a certain point that nature is this or that, but nobody can truly define it as the answer is based on their perception.

Then the question becomes, whether perception is the same for all, or do we all differ in how we perceive things.

Hence, we cannot interpret whether someone else's perception is the same as ours.

If our perceptions are in actuality different from one another's and proving whether it is the same or not isn't falsifiable,

Aren't we fighting for a cause in which no one can be declared a winner?

Not sure this would hold up in court.

[LoudyRowdy]

You have never played GE64 playa

Super Mario 64 and and Hoth battle on Shadows of the Empire is where its at

[OT2000]

Super Mario 64 and and Hoth battle on Shadows of the Empire is where its at

My GamerUp is on the way

[TheGilmore]

I've noticed the current case of Coors aren't as tasty was they were 20 years ago

King's Hawaiian rolls aren't as good anymore, either.

or perhaps years of stim abuse are finally catching up to us

Preach.

[kissdadookie]

The constant question is whether if DMAA is actually found in nature?


But, what really is nature?

Some may argue a certain point that nature is this or that, but nobody can truly define it as the answer is based on their perception.

Then the question becomes, whether perception is the same for all, or do we all differ in how we perceive things.

Hence, we cannot interpret whether someone else's perception is the same as ours.

If our perceptions are in actuality different from one another's and proving whether it is the same or not isn't falsifiable,

Aren't we fighting for a cause in which no one can be declared a winner?

But what really is a winner?

Are you one of those woo woo science people? o.O trolololol.

[ISurfNudeBrah]

Super Mario 64 and and Hoth battle on Shadows of the Empire is where its at

SOTE was awesome... not to side track thread but y'all see the new super mario coming out to nintendo switch?



Zelda looks freakin sweet too, and StarFox Zero...

[kissdadookie]

SOTE was awesome... not to side track thread but y'all see the new super mario coming out to nintendo switch?



Zelda looks freakin sweet too, and StarFox Zero...

Friday. Picking my Switch up on Friday. It's basically going to be a Zelda machine until they release that Mario game.

[ISurfNudeBrah]

Not sure if this was posted, dmaa toxicology info posted yesterday via Price Plow:
https://blog.priceplow.com/dmaa-supplements/safety

[kissdadookie]

Not sure if this was posted, dmaa toxicology info posted yesterday via Price Plow:
https://blog.priceplow.com/dmaa-supplements/safety

That chit is old news. Been known for years. Really can't stand PricePlow and their mostly biased "articles."

[ISurfNudeBrah]

That chit is old news. Been known for years. Really can't stand PricePlow and their mostly biased "articles."

I'm not disagreeing with you, brah.

[PricePlow]

Thanks for the shares and discussion everyone. I've been reading depositions and court documents and taking notes for hours this weekend. And quite honestly I'm having a blast doing it.

I will be sharing some of the most interesting findings with a horribly long YouTube eventually, but this case is more than a professional curiosity at this point - I am truly personally enamored with it.

Some findings:

* FDA is not necessarily who deserves to have all stones cast at them. There's another party behind this whole mess. Fabricant seems to have done as good of a job as he could with what data he was given, although some bias may have been shown in some of his emails (which are SEALED) that are discussed in his deposition.

* There seems to be a consistent pattern of bias and collusion in the "anti-DMAA" research papers. In two research trials that state DMAA was not found in geranium or geranium oil, it actually WAS found in one or more samples... but then it's mysteriously "not confirmed" to their liking anymore by the time publication time comes. There are extraordinarily damning emails that go along with those "non-confirmations", none of which are even discussed in the final paper either.

Oh, and the people paying for the study, who seem to show bias in said emails, got to edit the manuscript. I kid you not.

* Pro-tip: If you were a government employee, and you no longer are, and you're called to testify or get deposed about something that happened back when you were in the government, GET A PERSONAL LAWYER. The government's lawyers have their best interests, not yours. I truly believe that Fabricant did what he thought was best at the FDA, and the fact that he did not have his own lawyer leads me to believe that he's not guilty of any purposeful wrongdoing.

Not sure if this was posted, dmaa toxicology info posted yesterday via Price Plow:
https://blog.priceplow.com/dmaa-supplements/safety

That chit is old news. Been known for years.

A full 100+ page toxicology report has been out for years?

Is priceplow owned by hi-tech

Nope, but that's been speculated before. Answer is no.

Obviously right now they are our main advertiser, but I want to make a few things clear:

1. We don't need Hi-Tech's money. Without it, we are still profitable and still doing the same thing.

2. When the lawsuit was filed and HydroxyElite and Jack'd Up came out, I hunted THEM down, not the other way around. I loved what they were doing so much that I asked them to be our featured product -- not the other way around.

At this point, I could almost definitely make more money with other advertisers, but advertising is not the core of our business model, so I don't want banner ads and popups and takeovers all over the site, nor do I want to manage selling ads every damn month. I'd rather do fun stuff like read, write, and YouTube.


Win or lose on this case, seeing what happened behind the scenes of this study, I am forever a skeptic and have lessened trust for nearly anyone at this point. This is some grade-A bull**** work I'm reading.


Just like all other avenues of government, if my tax dollars are paying for something, I want it to be 100% open and transparent, or I don't want it getting funded at all. Right now we face the WORST of both worlds - high taxes and little transparency. No thanks.

[PricePlow]

The email from Khan is saying that you can't detect something in a quantity that is below your detection limit and that they need to do MORE ACCURATE testing.

That is, if you even believe a final paper that has some suspicious activity behind it, as Vaughn pointed out. Also the funders (who seem to show bias in other email threads) also got to edit the manuscript. That sound normal to you?

But more importantly, you should probably read the Khan deposition. They were measuring LC at a detection limit of 2.5ppb at one point. Why isn't that mentioned in the paper????????

[bri88col]

Thanks for the shares and discussion everyone. I've been reading depositions and court documents and taking notes for hours this weekend. And quite honestly I'm having a blast doing it.

I will be sharing some of the most interesting findings with a horribly long YouTube eventually, but this case is more than a professional curiosity at this point - I am truly personally enamored with it.

Some findings:

* FDA is not necessarily who deserves to have all stones cast at them. There's another party behind this whole mess. Fabricant seems to have done as good of a job as he could with what data he was given, although some bias may have been shown in some of his emails (which are SEALED) that are discussed in his deposition.

* There seems to be a consistent pattern of bias and collusion in the "anti-DMAA" research papers. In two research trials that state DMAA was not found in geranium or geranium oil, it actually WAS found in one or more samples... but then it's mysteriously "not confirmed" to their liking anymore by the time publication time comes. There are extraordinarily damning emails that go along with those "non-confirmations", none of which are even discussed in the final paper either.

Oh, and the people paying for the study, who seem to show bias in said emails, got to edit the manuscript. I kid you not.

* Pro-tip: If you were a government employee, and you no longer are, and you're called to testify or get deposed about something that happened back when you were in the government, GET A PERSONAL LAWYER. The government's lawyers have their best interests, not yours. I truly believe that Fabricant did what he thought was best at the FDA, and the fact that he did not have his own lawyer leads me to believe that he's not guilty of any purposeful wrongdoing.




A full 100+ page toxicology report has been out for years?




Nope, but that's been speculated before. Answer is no.

Obviously right now they are our main advertiser, but I want to make a few things clear:

1. We don't need Hi-Tech's money. Without it, we are still profitable and still doing the same thing.

2. When the lawsuit was filed and HydroxyElite and Jack'd Up came out, I hunted THEM down, not the other way around. I loved what they were doing so much that I asked them to be our featured product -- not the other way around.

At this point, I could almost definitely make more money with other advertisers, but advertising is not the core of our business model, so I don't want banner ads and popups and takeovers all over the site, nor do I want to manage selling ads every damn month. I'd rather do fun stuff like read, write, and YouTube.


Win or lose on this case, seeing what happened behind the scenes of this study, I am forever a skeptic and have lessened trust for nearly anyone at this point. This is some grade-A bull**** work I'm reading.


Just like all other avenues of government, if my tax dollars are paying for something, I want it to be 100% open and transparent, or I don't want it getting funded at all. Right now we face the WORST of both worlds - high taxes and little transparency. No thanks.

Thanks for posting this..is very interesting stuff going on

[Hooverville]

I was always of the mindset that DMAA would get shut down sooner or later. Even went so far as to stockpile this time.

Oh well, I'm glad that the government is being held accountable. (So it seems) and the Jared Wheat was brave enough to fight a good fight for the consumer.

And bout dat stockpile. Ain't even mad.

[kissdadookie]

Thanks for the shares and discussion everyone. I've been reading depositions and court documents and taking notes for hours this weekend. And quite honestly I'm having a blast doing it.

I will be sharing some of the most interesting findings with a horribly long YouTube eventually, but this case is more than a professional curiosity at this point - I am truly personally enamored with it.

Some findings:

* FDA is not necessarily who deserves to have all stones cast at them. There's another party behind this whole mess. Fabricant seems to have done as good of a job as he could with what data he was given, although some bias may have been shown in some of his emails (which are SEALED) that are discussed in his deposition.

* There seems to be a consistent pattern of bias and collusion in the "anti-DMAA" research papers. In two research trials that state DMAA was not found in geranium or geranium oil, it actually WAS found in one or more samples... but then it's mysteriously "not confirmed" to their liking anymore by the time publication time comes. There are extraordinarily damning emails that go along with those "non-confirmations", none of which are even discussed in the final paper either.

Oh, and the people paying for the study, who seem to show bias in said emails, got to edit the manuscript. I kid you not.

* Pro-tip: If you were a government employee, and you no longer are, and you're called to testify or get deposed about something that happened back when you were in the government, GET A PERSONAL LAWYER. The government's lawyers have their best interests, not yours. I truly believe that Fabricant did what he thought was best at the FDA, and the fact that he did not have his own lawyer leads me to believe that he's not guilty of any purposeful wrongdoing.




A full 100+ page toxicology report has been out for years?




Nope, but that's been speculated before. Answer is no.

Obviously right now they are our main advertiser, but I want to make a few things clear:

1. We don't need Hi-Tech's money. Without it, we are still profitable and still doing the same thing.

2. When the lawsuit was filed and HydroxyElite and Jack'd Up came out, I hunted THEM down, not the other way around. I loved what they were doing so much that I asked them to be our featured product -- not the other way around.

At this point, I could almost definitely make more money with other advertisers, but advertising is not the core of our business model, so I don't want banner ads and popups and takeovers all over the site, nor do I want to manage selling ads every damn month. I'd rather do fun stuff like read, write, and YouTube.


Win or lose on this case, seeing what happened behind the scenes of this study, I am forever a skeptic and have lessened trust for nearly anyone at this point. This is some grade-A bull**** work I'm reading.


Just like all other avenues of government, if my tax dollars are paying for something, I want it to be 100% open and transparent, or I don't want it getting funded at all. Right now we face the WORST of both worlds - high taxes and little transparency. No thanks.

Lmfao. So, you are implying that 1) previous army investigation on DMAA with them coming out stating that they did not find DMAA to be the culprit is somehow not information that we've known for YEARS now about the relative lack of danger of DMAA? (I point this out to illustrate how widely known that DMAA is relatively safe, that such information hasn't been shown as the Feds trying to hide chit from the public) 2) a deposition is now considered as peer reviewed published scientific literature (now don't go confusing that with me somehow thinking DMAA is dangerous or something, I don't think it's all that dangerous) and you sensationalize this by trying stating this in your "article" as if this is something the Feds are hiding from us?

Please oh please explain how what is essentially a deposition which generally the majority of folks do not keep up with (because they have no reason to) and this such a deposition does not get a spotlight shown on it is now somehow the Feds trying to knowing hide chit from the public. Don't even attempt to claim that you guys didn't try to sensationalize and imply that because look at the title of your "article."

You know what has been a consistent trend? You guys posting bias content clearly based on whom you get your $$$ from. Your site is a joke.

That is, if you even believe a final paper that has some suspicious activity behind it, as Vaughn pointed out. Also the funders (who seem to show bias in other email threads) also got to edit the manuscript. That sound normal to you?

But more importantly, you should probably read the Khan deposition. They were measuring LC at a detection limit of 2.5ppb at one point. Why isn't that mentioned in the paper????????

Oh, so now all of a sudden you're an expert on peer reviewed studies, the submission process, the editing process, the review process, etc.? Why did you not mention the conclusion in the NONPUBLISHED version of this study clearly stated that the variant of DMAA found in supplements were NOT the same as that found naturally in those trace amounts in the two geranium samples? How did such an obvious and glaring thing appsrebly allude you? I mean, the conclusion portion of the paper wasn't even all that long. They even numbered the points for you. There's four of them by the way.

[eatyourspinach]

^^^^^

[WSMuscle]

Oh, so now all of a sudden you're an expert on peer reviewed studies, the submission process, the editing process, the review process, etc.? Why did you not mention the conclusion in the NONPUBLISHED version of this study clearly stated that the variant of DMAA found in supplements were NOT the same as that found naturally in those trace amounts in the two geranium samples? How did such an obvious and glaring thing appsrebly allude you? I mean, the conclusion portion of the paper wasn't even all that long. They even numbered the points for you. There's four of them by the way.

I mean, I don't think any manufacturer has pretended the DMAA in their products is natural and not synthetic for a long time.

Hence the switch to bringing up the 'but the vitamin C in your supplements is synthetic' red herring in every single thread on the topic.

Synthetic bioidentical compounds still have to be valid dietary ingredients.

[WSMuscle]

That is, if you even believe a final paper that has some suspicious activity behind it, as Vaughn pointed out. Also the funders (who seem to show bias in other email threads) also got to edit the manuscript. That sound normal to you?

That actually sounds very normal to me, and it applies to papers funded by people for and against DMAA.

Kind of like how Li found DMAA in geranium oil, except that DMAA was found in a ratio of stereoisomers that precisely matched her reference standard, in a study funded by USPLabs.

Does that not sound suspicious to you? Does it only not sound suspicious because it supports your narrative?

Funding parties having a hand in editing published studies, or even declining to allow them to be published at all if they don't support their goals is entirely normal in the scientific community.

[WSMuscle]

All of this finding DMAA after the fact stuff is pretty interesting too.

Given that there was literally zero evidence to suggest DMAA was natural when companies started selling it.

The ping study that so many people point back to never actually identified DMAA

It noted an 'unidentified' compound as .6% of the oil and made no attempt to identify what that compound was.

So it's interesting that DMAA was sold for years and years with literally 0 evidence it was naturally occurring before studies start magically appearing, funded by people who sell DMAA, that claim that it is naturally occurring.

[kissdadookie]

I mean, I don't think any manufacturer has pretended the DMAA in their products is natural and not synthetic for a long time.

Hence the switch to bringing up the 'but the vitamin C in your supplements is synthetic' red herring in every single thread on the topic.

Synthetic bioidentical compounds still have to be valid dietary ingredients.

Yup, that vitamin C argument is most certainly a red herring that banks on the fact that the majority of people are not aware of what bioidentical means or is. Most people are not aware that the synthesized vitamin C in supplements are molecularly identical to that of vitamin C found in nature (and that there is an entirely synthetic form of vitamin C which is NOT used in dietary supplements AND the human body does not know what to do with that entirely synthetic form which does not exist in nature).

It's so silly that the argument now is using this unpublished version of the study in question whilst completely ignoring the fact that the conclusion in the unpublished version of the study CLEARLY IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS states that the DMAA found in supplements can only be synthesized and not found in nature because the diastereomeric ratios are different to that of the DMAA found in the two geranium samples (this means that the two will have different chemical properties folks).

[TMac26]

Let's be real here. Who else is going to fund a study on something unless they have monetary interest.

Labs don't run studies out of the kindness of the heart lol

[VaughnTrue]

This info may help shed some light on to the situation at hand.










There, in words from the FDA's own mouth shows why this compound is completely legal to be sold as a dietary supplement, regardless of the fact if its naturally extracted or synthetically manufactured.

[dougefresh93]

time for the FDA to "lay down and rot" crew!

[eatyourspinach]

So DMAA can be sold, that's a win for the consumer but I'm not sure on what to think on if it was really found in nature.

[VaughnTrue]

So DMAA can be sold, that's a win for the consumer but I'm not sure on what to think on if it was really found in nature.

the documents that we've posted so far all show that it was found in every study. when it was shown to "not exist" was when detection limits on machines were purposefully modified to not be sensitive enough to see it.

at this point it appears beyond any reasonable doubt that DMAA is both found in nature, and satisfies all requirements necessary to be considered DSHEA compliant

[TMac26]

The FDA is s a corrupt organization.

[kissdadookie]

This info may help shed some light on to the situation at hand.










There, in words from the FDA's own mouth shows why this compound is completely legal to be sold as a dietary supplement, regardless of the fact if its naturally extracted or synthetically manufactured.

FDA's own mouth shows that a synthetic compound needs to be identical to the natural analogue. As you can clearly see in the non-published version of the study which is being used as part of Hi-Tech's supporting exhibits, the DMAA in supplements are NOT identical to the natural analogues (just like how there's a synthetic analogue of natural vitamin C as well as a entirely synthetic form of vitamin C which is NOT used as a dietary ingredient). Going by the literature, the form of DMAA found in supplements are also not a natural metabolite of a natural compound (or else you would have been able to take the natural form and process it to the form used in supplements, but the non-published version of the study clearly states that you can't and you would have to synthesize it from scratch to get that form).

So:

- Not a synthetic analogue of a natural compound. (non DSHEA compliant)
- Not an extract of a natural compound. (non DSHEA compliant)
- Not a metabolite of a natural compound. (non DSHEA compliant)
- The version in supplements not found in nature. (non DSHEA compliant)

^ That is the current situation at hand.

I've already went into this in depth, so I don't understand why you are stating the opposite instead of addressing the points I made and addressing the Conclusions section of the non-published study you guys are using as part of your supporting exhibits.

the documents that we've posted so far all show that it was found in every study. when it was shown to "not exist" was when detection limits on machines were purposefully modified to not be sensitive enough to see it.

at this point it appears beyond any reasonable doubt that DMAA is both found in nature, and satisfies all requirements necessary to be considered DSHEA compliant

Except you're neglecting to acknowledge the fact that in the non-published study, the conclusion CLEARLY states that the version of DMAA in supplements do not have a identical natural analogue and thus can ONLY be synthesized from scratch. Thus, non-compliant as per DSHEA at bare minimum.

[BULLED]

The FDA is s a corrupt organization.

Corrupt organization regulating a dishonest industry, sounds about right.

[WSMuscle]

Let's be real here. Who else is going to fund a study on something unless they have monetary interest.

Labs don't run studies out of the kindness of the heart lol

Well right, but that works both ways.

You can't say the FDAs studies are biased and don't count because of a conflict of interest

And then say that Hi-Tech/USPLabs studies are super accurate and awesome and totally relevant despite the conflict of interest.

[kissdadookie]

Just in case anyone is unaware of what the conclusion of the non-published version of the study Hi-Tech is trying to use as their supporting evidence:



The only requirement to understanding that conclusion is that you need to have a grasp of the English language.