Innovative Labs Wicked Pre Workout: 70mg DMAA!

Innovative Labs Wicked Pre Workout: 70mg DMAA!
0

#1

Even though there’s a breakout new stimulant in DHMA in 2016, an old stalwart is seeing a grand rebirth among supplement companies and consumers. Yep, you’ve guessed it… DMAA, or 1,3 Dimethylamylamine, is back with a vengeance and it’s showing up in all sorts of pre workouts and fat burners …
(Read More on the PricePlow Blog)


#2

DMAA is illegal to sell as a dietary supplement, period. Regardless of whether synthetic DMAA meets the definition of a dietary ingredient, there has been no ndi notification filed and worse, DMAA is an approved drug, which makes it illegal to sell as a dietary supplement.

It is prohibited under section 301(ll) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 331(ll)) to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any food to which a drug approved under section 505 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 355) has been added, unless the added drug was marketed in food before being approved under section 505. DMAA was approved as a drug in 1948 under section 505 of the Act, and DMAA was not marketed in food prior to its approval as a drug. Any product containing DMAA is in violation of section 301(ll) of the Act and is illegal to sell as a dietary supplement.


#3

The "half Truth Speaker" RK is wrong as usual. First and foremost, however, DMAA is not an "illegal" ingredient as stated by the Patent Troll (RK). The Food and Drug Administation C'FDA") has a comprehensive regulatory scheme, which includes procedures by which the Agency can take a dietary supplement ingredient off of the market. The banning of ephedrine alkaloids is a well-known example of the FDA'S exercise of this procedure. The FDA, however, has not followed such a procedure with respect to DMAA,rendering it a legal, albeit apparently controversial, ingredient. Hi-Tech is currently engaged in litigation with the FDA over this issue, to include the FDA's failure to follow its own procedure.The FDA has taken the position that it need not follow its procedure for banning dietary supplement ingredients, arguing that DMAA is not subject to dietary supplement regulation.Specifically, the FDA argues that DMAA does not occur in nature and, therefore, is not subject
to procedures applicable to dietary supplemen8. DMAA, however, can be found in the Geranium plant, as has been shown through scientific studies, and the concentration of DMAA in Geranium is irrelevant to the analysis of this issue under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.
Hi-Tech is confident it has taken the correct position and that it will prevail in this litigation. Given the fact that DMAA is nor "illegal," and in light of the post by a very untrustworthy/biased source (RK) Hi-Tech felt the need to set the record straight.


#4

As usual the uninformed are wrong again. It is not even relevant in the case of DMAA whether or not it is found in geranium. The FDA is correct that it is not subject to dietary supplement regulation because it is a DRUG. DMAA was approved as a drug in 1948 under section 505 of the Act. This FACT alone makes DMAA ILLEGAL to sell as a dietary supplement.

Show me any evidence where DMAA was marketed in food prior to its approval as a drug in 1948? You can't because it never happened!

How many drugs are going to continually be illegally sold as dietary supplements? Want to talk about BMPEA too? Also illegal, since it does not meet the definition of being a dietary ingredient. BMPEA is NOT found in any plant anywhere - there is not a single scientific reference to support it.


#5

Sounds like a company/ person who was unsuccessful with the Thermolife brand who has now turned into an unsuccessful patent troll as well! Be glad to talk about any herbal extract including beta-Methylphenylethylamine as it is found in many plants including Acacia species. However, would be more interesting to talk about you being a rat and "working your little fingers to the bone" as an informant.....want to open that up for discussion half truth speaker?


#6

You have failed to address any of the facts regarding DMAA being approved as a drug. Typical actions of the ignorant.

Beta-Methyl PEA is not found in any species of Acacia, period. There is not a single scientific reference anywhere that shows Beta-Methyl in any species of Acacia or being found in any other botanical source. It is not a natural compound. Every reference EVER given shows N-Methyl PEA and NOT Beta-Methyl PEA. Do you even understand the different positions of the methyl group?? There is not a single reference anywhere that shows Beta-Methyl as naturally occurring.

The truth does not cease to exist just because it's ignored.


#7

I certainly understand the difference in the different positions of the methyl groups and I am very informed on the science of all PEA alkaloids as we were the first to bring them to market in 2003. You obviously are misinformed as you have been the multiple times we invalidated your bogus patents..... Speaking of--- truth does not cease to exist just because it's ignored---it seems you sidestepped the informant/rat fact. You should just embrace it as you are the Truth Speaker and people would respect you more.


#8

Again you fail to address the fact that DMAA was approved as a drug in 1948 which makes it illegal to sell as a dietary supplement. Prove me wrong. You can't!

Show me the reference where Beta-Methyl PEA is naturally found in any species of Acacia. You can't!

The truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light!


#9

With your logic ephedrine alkaloids found in Mahuang would have never been legal....The manufacture of ephedrine began in the 1920s, when Merck began marketing and selling the drug. In the 1940s, doctors began to prescribe it more aggressively for asthma—synephrine was "advertised as an antihistaminic to be used in the treatment of the common cold as far back as the 1930's by Boehringer — surely you are not suggesting it is illegal also. And as for Yohimbine it is certainly illegal by your interpretation.... You sound like the quack Dr. Pieter Cohen from Harvard who would have all supplements banned. You may want to back off that stance as then your Patent racket would be shut down. In any event there are many other examples such as: In 1911, the U.S. government initiated United States V. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola, hoping to force Coca-Cola to remove caffeine from its formula. The case was decided in favor of Coca-Cola. The end result will be the same for Hi-Tech and DMAA will not be banned much like caffeine was saved from the Gestapo. I did notice you sidestepped the informant issue.


#10

Ha ha, ignorance is bliss at Lo-Tech! The FDA already sent a Warning Letter regarding Synephrine:

"To the best of FDA’s knowledge, there is no information demonstrating that Bitter Orange Extract (synephrine 30%) was lawfully marketed as a dietary ingredient in the United States before October 15, 1994, nor is there information demonstrating that this ingredient has been present in the food supply as an article used for human food in a form in which the food has not been chemically altered."

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/En...

If a 30% Synephrine Extract requires an ndi notification in order to be legally sold as a dietary supplement, then it's a sure bet that synthetic Synephrine requires an ndi notification too!

You are still ignoring the FACT that BMPEA is not found in any species of Acacia even though you would be glad to talk about it earlier. As soon as you found out that the fraudulent method of using references that show N-Methyl PEA in plants is not the same as Beta-Methyl PEA (which is not found in plants!) would not pass mustard here - crickets!

The truth is the truth is the truth!


#11

Ha ha, ignorance is bliss at Lo-Tech! The FDA already sent a Warning Letter regarding Synephrine:

"To the best of FDA’s knowledge, there is no information demonstrating that Bitter Orange Extract (synephrine 30%) was lawfully marketed as a dietary ingredient in the United States before October 15, 1994, nor is there information demonstrating that this ingredient has been present in the food supply as an article used for human food in a form in which the food has not been chemically altered."

If a 30% Synephrine Extract requires an ndi notification in order to be legally sold as a dietary supplement, then it's a sure bet that synthetic Synephrine requires an ndi notification too!

You are still ignoring the FACT that BMPEA is not found in any species of Acacia even though you would be glad to talk about it earlier. As soon as you found out that the fraudulent method of using references that show N-Methyl PEA in plants is not the same as Beta-Methyl PEA (which is not found in plants!) would not pass mustard here - crickets!

The truth is the truth is the truth!


#12

Hate to prove the rat wrong.....again! We had a shipment of citrus aurantium 30% detained at customs 9 months ago with the same nonsensical argument. However, we challenged FDA and Department of Justice stating that we had been importing synephrine alkaloids since 1997 and if they wanted another fight like the one on DMAA we would gladly take up that fight. Luckily the powers to be in Washington "saw the light" and released our goods and we have since imported the material half a dozen times. I know the "half truth speaker" has never fought a case in his life and would rather "cooperate with the government" rather than put them to task when they are wrong......but sometimes you must stand your ground and do not let bullies or patent troll like RK win. AND IN NO CASE IS IT RIGHT TO BECOME AN INFORMANT AND TELL ON OTHER PEOPLE TO LESSEN THE JAIL TIME FOR A BAD DECISION MADE....YOU EITHER SHOULD FIGHT IF WRONGLY ACCUSED OR TAKE YOU MEDICINE, WHICH IS SOMETHING RK/THERMOLIFE HAS NEVER DONE IN THEIR EXISTENCE.