Caught this on MSNBC.com
I’ve never used ephedra so this is not of particular interest to me. However, I am wondering if this type of ruling may set a precedent that brings back some other supplements (MAG-10 anyone?)
I understand the two are very different. What do some of the more astute forum members think?
that would be fuckin’ sweet if MAG-10 came back. Talk about profits!!!
I doubt that this ruling will stand and I seriously doubt that PH’s will ever make it back especially with all the shit going on with MLB.
Wow, interesting. We’ll see what comes from it.
That damned FDA has to be watched like a hawk!
Thank goodness for those liberal judges… 
HELLO MD-6!!!
That is awesome! Fuck the FDA. Close minded bastards. People should have the right and ability to put whatever they want in their body, not be told by a government agency what is good for them. The fuckers that banned ephedra in the first place are more than likely fat bastards that are unable to think for or take care of themselves, but have this ingenious idea that they can and should tell the rest of us what is good for us.
Just because their learning curve is flat and they cannot think for themselves and need someone to help them with their decision making process,limit their choices, and protect them fro themselves, does not mean everyone is like that. Fuck them. They are cowards that bow to exagerations, special interests, and people on crusades (in this case banning ephdra). About time they got their arrogant asses slapped back down…
The ephedrine/ephedra products are much different than the prohormones. The ephed* products were/are very mainstream - ever notice how many ephed* products were on the counter at every gas station? … a huge market for sure, I wonder how much money is being lost by these companies? So there could be a big push to get them back. Still I think it will fail.
As far as MAG-10 and prohormone type products? GFL. Or good f*cking luck for those of you that do not speak my language. There is not enough money in it, and so ultimately nobody cares.
Many of us in the biz have long theorized that the FDA would lose this case because they wanted to lose the case.
They don’t think the legistlation as written was strong enough.
In other words, they want to make the case for a much stronger law that would either include or set precedence for banning other supplements.
[quote]sam747 wrote:
HELLO MD-6!!![/quote]
I can’t imagine a scenario where we’d want to bring back MD-6, even if we could.
It was a great product for its time, but as a fat burner, HOT-ROX with A7-E is vastly superior to ephedrine products.
And. as a stimulant, Spike kicks ephedrine’s butt by giving a “buzz” that’s less harsh and a lot more enjoyable.
Great. Guess that means “their arrogant asses did not get slapped back down”. If it is not just a tiny bit evident in my previous post, I am tired of a government or government body telling me what is good for me or anyone else, especially when it concerns my own body. And also in the light of the fact that I am likely in better shape from any and every physical standpoint imaginable than 99% of the bastards telling me what is good for me.
By the way, I agree both HOT-ROX and Spike are superior for their effects as both a stimulant and a fat burner than ephedra. If ephdra was put back on the shelves, I would have little interest in using it. However, it would be nice to see some precedence set in overturning some legislation and allowing people to make their own decisions regarding stimulants, prohormones, or anything else they want to put in their bodies. If people make harmful decisions and abuse any type of substance, that is their own choice. “Chlorinates” the gene pool so to speak.
[quote]Atomic Dog wrote:
Many of us in the biz have long theorized that the FDA would lose this case because they wanted to lose the case.
They don’t think the legistlation as written was strong enough.
In other words, they want to make the case for a much stronger law that would either include or set precedence for banning other supplements.
[/quote]
Very astute observation. This is exactly what is going to happen. This is not going to lead to ephedra returning. It is going to lead to a much more strict and defined law covering supplements in general.
It is much more likely that the entire ephedrine line will be removed than that ephedra will be back. Take a look at the cough syrup isle in your pharmacy. See all those PE products, those used to have pseudoephedrine in them. They are preemptively reformulating them in preparation for ephedrine containing products being removed from the marketplace or moved behind the pharmacy counter.
Anybody aware of any place that is offering it again?
I hope the ban holds up even though I have a two year supply. I see no danger if it is used properly.
TC’s right, I rather use HOT-ROX than an Ephedera product. What would be better would be to get Andro back on the shelf.
[quote]Atomic Dog wrote:
Many of us in the biz have long theorized that the FDA would lose this case because they wanted to lose the case.
They don’t think the legistlation as written was strong enough.
In other words, they want to make the case for a much stronger law that would either include or set precedence for banning other supplements.
[/quote]
Yeah, but if they lost the case based on a weaker law, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the stronger law would also be overturned? And that’s assuming that Congress passes a stronger law.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Company president Bruce Hough said the decision is about “protecting the public?s access to safe and effective dietary supplements.”
That damned FDA has to be watched like a hawk!
Thank goodness for those liberal judges… ;)[/quote]
Damn straight Vroom!
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Atomic Dog wrote:
Many of us in the biz have long theorized that the FDA would lose this case because they wanted to lose the case.
They don’t think the legistlation as written was strong enough.
In other words, they want to make the case for a much stronger law that would either include or set precedence for banning other supplements.
Yeah, but if they lost the case based on a weaker law, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the stronger law would also be overturned? And that’s assuming that Congress passes a stronger law. [/quote]
It wasn’t a law that was overturned. It was a regulatory ban, because the current laws (according to the ruling) were not sufficient to support the ban.
The stronger law would guarantee them of their regulations NOT being overturned.
You wouldnt even think ephedrine is banned these days, anyone notice that alot of gas stations still sell stockpiles of it. I still buy it everytime I see it at the gas stations.