DNP Issue

[Surfstud18]

Opps sorry

[magic32]

have you even checked out the link I posted in my previous post...I don't think you have.

Perhaps I could ask a more telling question. Did you read what you posted? Or more importantly, did you understand it?

Because something was once doctor prescribed (or even because it produces a desired effect) doesn't necessarily make it RIGHT. You're now delving into bureaucratically swayed moral issues where ends often justify, or more aptly, rationalize means. What you fail to realize is that your pseudo-study (it is in actuality a meta-analytical study - one that does no primary research, but rather secondarily analyzes the questions, methods, and results of others) as with most of what you posit is counterproductive to your point. Let's examine this, it essentially states that DNP (for human consumption) was clinically studied and successfully utilized, nay actually recommended as a fat loss agent. Oh and here are some excerpts from your point sabotaging study where the data and hazards of DNP usage are so overwhelmingly against it one's mind boggles as to how the second set of quotes could even exist. :

Set #1 (From primary clinical researchers)

This, then, is a toxic product, no matter how introduced into the animal organism, whether by ingestion, intravenously, subcutaneously, intraperitoneally, or even rubbed on the skin...

...As the result of the animal experiments of Mayer, previously alluded to, dinitrophenol was proved to be a specific poison...

...Jaundice and other symptoms of liver damage were reported by various observers. N'53'55-57'63"116...

...patients showed similar powdery anterior subcapsular changes, denser posterior subcapsular opacities resembling brass filings, and rapid loss of vision...

...A total of nine deaths[UNDER CLINICALLY CONTROLLED CONDITIONS MIND YOU] have been reported from the use of dinitrophenol and one from dinitro-ortho-cresol.60-69 Three patients died from overdoses. Three of the remainder had agranulocytosis [results in a syndrome of frequent chronic bacterial infections of the skin, lungs, throat, etc.]. In the majority of cases death occurred within twenty-four hours after the onset of such toxic manifestations as dizziness, fatigue, dyspnea, high temperature, intense thirst, and excessive perspiration...

...[AND PROBABLY THE MOST DAMNING] They stated further that "to treat a mild chronic condition such as obesity with a toxic agent capable of inducing serious injury and death appears to be unjustified."

These are all definitive (not speculative) conclusions. So let's look at what your researchers (presented in the link as support by you) gathered from all this, since I read your link, shall we?:


Set #2 (from secondary report writing researchers)

These authors believed that preliminary results in patients indicated that dinitrophenol could satisfactorily increase metabolism, experimentally and therapeutically, and might "be useful in the treatment of obesity, hypothyroidism, and similarly d-e-p-ressed metabolic states."

Wow, simply wow. Did they read the studies that presented?
So to come full circle back to aforementioned morality issue, it seems your researchers, based on the harm, suffering, and oh let us not forget death of supposedly safe physician supervised test subjects, promptly stamped DNP "Good-To-Go". That's exactly what happens when you have deliberate agenda from the start. But I do thank you for providing me with more research weaponry, I hadn't come across that piece.

And since you're into questioning links, did you even read my link on The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) list under "Information on specific poisons"? http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications...en/index3.html It's hard to have an international poisons list when, according to you, poisons don't exist.

That's a good segue, because it also reveals the fundamental flaw in your argument. By definition a poison (of course since they don't exist, I don't know how Webster can define them but that's another story) is:

POISON
1: a substance that through its chemical action usually kills, injures, or impairs an organism b (2) : something destructive or harmful (3) : an object of aversion or abhorrence

We have a winner, because this exemplifies all that DNP does within any organism, regardless of low controlled dosing or stellar fat loss (normally bad mind you), is slowly and methodically degrade life. Every single effect it has is a sign or symptom of impairment which if continued will escalate to their necessary and logical end...death. It's great that one of these signs is fat loss, and that it can be harnessed, safely in short durations, but that's neither a property nor a side effect. Incidentally, when has the extreme (up to a lb. a day) sudden weight/fat loss of an otherwise healthy organism (not speaking of obesity or bb'ers) ever been a good thing? What a world we live in where overtly poisonous negatives can become positives. Only an obesity-laden, self-absorbed, irrationally vain, microwavable immediacy seeking (not that I don't nuke) society would consider DNP.

CONVERSELY,

DRUG
1: a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication. (2) a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.

Granted they can be harmful, we've already established that the misappropriation of anything can so be, but that is not their intent hence the term "SIDE" effect. But rather, they work by imposing their intended beneficial properties as illustrated in def. #2 above. Their toxicity and harmfulness are all unfortunate side effects not primary effects like those of poisons.

----------------

How anyone could attempt to support a thesis with such haphazard empirical evidence is beyond me. However, I fully realize that it's often difficult to assimilate new information once ones paradigm has become solidified. I only ask that you try to understand what is presented, whether you subscribe to it or not. For in the trying you demonstrate the potential for shifting paradigms in the future...and that is a good thing.

Although I've enjoyed your rebuttals, I am starting to bore of the redundancies, and must move on to more productive endeavors. I'm confident that even the most cerebrally limited individual who considers what has been presented within this thread will come to a singular and inevitable conclusion.

Thanks again New Vader.

M.

[NewVader]

Perhaps I could ask a more telling question. Did you read what you posted? Or more importantly, did you understand it?

Because something was once doctor prescribed (or even because it produces a desired effect) doesn't necessarily make it RIGHT. You're now delving into bureaucratically swayed moral issues where ends often justify, or more aptly, rationalize means. What you fail to realize is that your pseudo-study (it is in actuality a meta-analytical study - one that does no primary research, but rather secondarily analyzes the questions, methods, and results of others) as with most of what you posit is counterproductive to your point. Let's examine this, it essentially states that DNP (for human consumption) was clinically studied and successfully utilized, nay actually recommended as a fat loss agent. Oh and here are some excerpts from your point sabotaging study where the data and hazards of DNP usage are so overwhelmingly against it one's mind boggles as to how the second set of quotes could even exist. :

Set #1 (From primary clinical researchers)

[/SIZE]

These are all definitive (not speculative) conclusions. So let's look at what your researchers (presented in the link as support by you) gathered from all this, since I read your link, shall we?:


Set #2 (from secondary report writing researchers)

Wow, simply wow. Did they read the studies that presented?
So to come full circle back to aforementioned morality issue, it seems your researchers, based on the harm, suffering, and oh let us not forget death of supposedly safe physician supervised test subjects, promptly stamped DNP "Good-To-Go". That's exactly what happens when you have deliberate agenda from the start. But I do thank you for providing me with more research weaponry, I hadn't come across that piece.

And since you're into questioning links, did you even read my link on The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) list under "Information on specific poisons"? http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications...en/index3.html It's hard to have an international poisons list when, according to you, poisons don't exist.

That's a good segue, because it also reveals the fundamental flaw in your argument. By definition a poison (of course since they don't exist, I don't know how Webster can define them but that's another story) is:

POISON
1: a substance that through its chemical action usually kills, injures, or impairs an organism b (2) : something destructive or harmful (3) : an object of aversion or abhorrence

We have a winner, because this exemplifies all that DNP does within any organism, regardless of low controlled dosing or stellar fat loss (normally bad mind you), is slowly and methodically degrade life. Every single effect it has is a sign or symptom of impairment which if continued will escalate to their necessary and logical end...death. It's great that one of these signs is fat loss, and that it can be harnessed, safely in short durations, but that's neither a property nor a side effect. Incidentally, when has the extreme (up to a lb. a day) sudden weight/fat loss of an otherwise healthy organism (not speaking of obesity or bb'ers) ever been a good thing? What a world we live in where overtly poisonous negatives can become positives. Only an obesity-laden, self-absorbed, irrationally vain, microwavable immediacy seeking (not that I don't nuke) society would consider DNP.

CONVERSELY,

DRUG
1: a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication. (2) a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.

Granted they can be harmful, we've already established that the misappropriation of anything can so be, but that is not their intent hence the term "SIDE" effect. But rather, they work by imposing their intended beneficial properties as illustrated in def. #2 above. Their toxicity and harmfulness are all unfortunate side effects not primary effects like those of poisons.

----------------

How anyone could attempt to support a thesis with such haphazard empirical evidence is beyond me. However, I fully realize that it's often difficult to assimilate new information once ones paradigm has become solidified. I only ask that you try to understand what is presented, whether you subscribe to it or not. For in the trying you demonstrate the potential for shifting paradigms in the future...and that is a good thing.

Although I've enjoyed your rebuttals, I am starting to bore of the redundancies, and must move on to more productive endeavors. I'm confident that even the most cerebrally limited individual who considers what has been presented within this thread will come to a singular and inevitable conclusion.

Thanks again New Vader.

M.

I get your point, although unfortunately your link does not work
Let me ask you a question.
Lets forget about people using dnp at home, experimenting with dosages and risking their lifes sometimes.
If you had the possibility of administering dnp under medical supervision, meaning that the doctors personally administed each dose of dnp daily, without letting the individiual in possession of the drug (or poison if you will)
In these circumstances where all the vitals are monitored,blood work is carried on and only a low dose is administered for long periods of time, would you still considered dnp to be a poison, or would you actually consider it a drug, since the negative effects could be limited and the benefit enhanced? (yes there are some side effects but this is true for every drug as well...)
( I know this has been done in Texas in the 80s)

[NewVader]

and yes there was 1 physician supervised death in that article, but it seems that person had preexisting health issues...

[magic32]

Let me ask you a question.
Lets forget about people using dnp at home, experimenting with dosages and risking their lifes sometimes.
If you had the possibility of administering dnp under medical supervision, meaning that the doctors personally administed each dose of dnp daily, without letting the individiual in possession of the drug (or poison if you will)
In these circumstances where all the vitals are monitored,blood work is carried on and only a low dose is administered for long periods of time, would you still considered dnp to be a poison, or would you actually consider it a drug, since the negative effects could be limited and the benefit enhanced? (yes there are some side effects but this is true for every drug as well...)
( I know this has been done in Texas in the 80s)

That is a very honest question.

However it demonstrates a continued failure either within my expression of the answer, or in your ability to comprehend it. Assuming the former is true I'd like to address it from another perspective...that of analogy.

But firstly, the answer is both true and the same regardless of physician assistance or user independence. Also, let me reiterate DNP has NO SIDE EFFECTS! This is because unlike the curative nature of medicinal drugs, there is nothing for them to be beside. In other words, side effects run alongside the healing characteristics of a drug. This is juxtaposed by the fact that EVERY DNP effect shares in the overall harmfully damaging responses (signs/symptoms) of exposure to this chemical, which is what makes it and everything like it a poison.

ANALOGY
A man without a hammer, takes off his heeled shoe and proceeds to 'hammer' a nail into place. The question presented is did the man have a hammer? The obvious answer is "no", BUT he used his shoe like one.

As stated earlier the defining characteristic of drugs (that which makes them so) is some form of healing, conversely poisons have an innate harming nature. Thus, in former examples (here and in other threads) of Chemo, Fluoride, Chlorine, snake venom, etc., poisons much like the shoe heel analogy can be effectively used in capacities for which they were never meant...notably as drugs. Consequently, if DNP is reducing fat whether under prescribed supervision or independence; life-threatening obesity or for aesthetic value, it becomes like the heel (ie hammer-like/drug-like). However, that is not to say it has been divested of one iota of its 'defining characteristic' (that of harming) because although minimized through dosing and timing even its perceived helping benefit is still most NEGATIVE! I covered this when speaking about chemo, which although harnessed and targeted at the destruction of decisively negative cancer cells, it is still "killing life" (what poisons do) and contributing to the organisms overall harm, but fortunately kills the cancer prior to the patient. The same truth exists in the targeted controlled application of DNP for sudden and rapid fat/weight loss which is inherently negative, and part of its overall impairment of the organism. This dangerous and unsafe signal would easily and naturally be perceived by any other creature on the planet as harmful and poisoning!

For clarity, the key is that poisons NEVER contribute anything positive. Even their perceived positives are merely desired and acceptable negatives, which are temporarily tolerated for a very specific purpose. Whereas, drugs are positive (make you better in some way), but unfortunately have some negative side effects.

M.

[magic32]

and yes there was 1 physician supervised death in that article, but it seems that person had preexisting health issues...

Sounds like gross minimalization to me.

This is an article quote:

...A total of nine deaths have been reported from the use of dinitrophenol and one from dinitro-ortho-cresol.60-69 Three patients died from overdoses.

Maybe you should re-read it.

M.

[cj1capp]

Disclaimer: This is not a flaming, chastisement or castigation, it is simply meant to inform and instruct. So there's no need for anyone to take it personally or become offended...sheew!

People should really stop imparting drug characteristics to this poison. DNP IS A POISON, and more specifically a toxic one!

For example, will the authors of the above posts that cite DNP's halflife please reveal your sources? This type of interpolated propaganda, seen on many boards and parroted throughout the web, often emanates from a few self proclaimed authorities who have written inaccurate handbooks, profiles, FAQ's or spiels on a subject. Let me state for the record that you're not building up mgs as stated above, you are slowly, purposefully (controlling dosage & intervals) poisoning yourself to benefit from a very specific and desirable symptom. This is very similar to that of chemotherapy in which some poisons (chemo meds) are controlled and employed to battle others (various cancers).

Yes...pesticides, poisons, and toxins have halflives, but not genuine ones in the since that medicinal drugs do. They don't saturate your blood levels to a maximum benefit concentrations, instead they contaminate or toxify your blood, and in some cases tissue, to the extent that they elicit natural physiological responses.

Here's some relevant reading for greater comprehension of the signs, symptoms and very natural physiological effects of poisoning (not side effects) as well as their blood concentration effects, and testing techniques (most of which are quite different):

• http://<br /> http://www.epa.gov/tt.../dinitrop.html
• http://<br /> http://ianrpubs.unl.e...des/ec2505.htm
• http://<br /> http://www.who.int/ip...en/index5.html
• http://www.acb.org.uk/Annclinbiochem...sonsjuly02.pdf
• http://www.mercola.com/2006/aug/8/th...or_inhaled.htm

I realize that it's far more desirable to refer to DNP in terms of how long it takes to BUILD-UP, SATURATE, OR KICK-IN, but a far more accurate d-e-piction would be how long it takes for your body to become affected by and respond to your deliberate poisoning efforts. The inverse of halflife uptake is that of extinction, and similarly there is no defined expiration for the expulsion of poisons from the body. These chemicals leave your body based on type (blood or tissue inhabitants---DNP is both), severity of exposure/toxicity (amount, duration & frequency) and the speed/efficiency of your body's own ability (including external resource assistance when applicable) to rid itself of these agents.

DNP is and has always been dangerous and it should be obvious that I'm not a proponent, but many of us are here to help others and that's what this monologue is for. As stated so eloquently by Goose above:

I had to add my $.02.
Oh, and by the way, no offense to those who've tried unknowingly, but even attempting to frontload such a chemical is absurd. Many of the techniques revealed on these webpages are not readily transferable to hormones, compounds, chems or supps other than those explicitly described. Please be more careful with your bodies, and be sure to read and question thoroughly prior to practicing.

M.

awesome post, Magic thanks for everything.

[cj1capp]

Disclaimer: This is not a flaming, chastisement or castigation, it is simply meant to inform and instruct. So there's no need for anyone to take it personally or become offended...sheew!

People should really stop imparting drug characteristics to this poison. DNP IS A POISON, and more specifically a toxic one!

For example, will the authors of the above posts that cite DNP's halflife please reveal your sources? This type of interpolated propaganda, seen on many boards and parroted throughout the web, often emanates from a few self proclaimed authorities who have written inaccurate handbooks, profiles, FAQ's or spiels on a subject. Let me state for the record that you're not building up mgs as stated above, you are slowly, purposefully (controlling dosage & intervals) poisoning yourself to benefit from a very specific and desirable symptom. This is very similar to that of chemotherapy in which some poisons (chemo meds) are controlled and employed to battle others (various cancers).

Yes...pesticides, poisons, and toxins have halflives, but not genuine ones in the since that medicinal drugs do. They don't saturate your blood levels to a maximum benefit concentrations, instead they contaminate or toxify your blood, and in some cases tissue, to the extent that they elicit natural physiological responses.

Here's some relevant reading for greater comprehension of the signs, symptoms and very natural physiological effects of poisoning (not side effects) as well as their blood concentration effects, and testing techniques (most of which are quite different):

• http://<br /> http://www.epa.gov/tt.../dinitrop.html
• http://<br /> http://ianrpubs.unl.e...des/ec2505.htm
• http://<br /> http://www.who.int/ip...en/index5.html
• http://www.acb.org.uk/Annclinbiochem...sonsjuly02.pdf
• http://www.mercola.com/2006/aug/8/th...or_inhaled.htm

I realize that it's far more desirable to refer to DNP in terms of how long it takes to BUILD-UP, SATURATE, OR KICK-IN, but a far more accurate d-e-piction would be how long it takes for your body to become affected by and respond to your deliberate poisoning efforts. The inverse of halflife uptake is that of extinction, and similarly there is no defined expiration for the expulsion of poisons from the body. These chemicals leave your body based on type (blood or tissue inhabitants---DNP is both), severity of exposure/toxicity (amount, duration & frequency) and the speed/efficiency of your body's own ability (including external resource assistance when applicable) to rid itself of these agents.

DNP is and has always been dangerous and it should be obvious that I'm not a proponent, but many of us are here to help others and that's what this monologue is for. As stated so eloquently by Goose above:

I had to add my $.02.
Oh, and by the way, no offense to those who've tried unknowingly, but even attempting to frontload such a chemical is absurd. Many of the techniques revealed on these webpages are not readily transferable to hormones, compounds, chems or supps other than those explicitly described. Please be more careful with your bodies, and be sure to read and question thoroughly prior to practicing.

M.

From personal experience and knowing Magi32 i say to all head these words!!!

[perfectbeast2001]

your gear is junk then mate, get a new source..

[cj1capp]

your gear is junk then mate, get a new source..

This is the only time ever that I can say that I disagree with you PB. I fell that Magic is correct with his statement and feelings towards DNP . I believe I also had one of the most respected DNP sources alive today. These are my personal feelings from my own use. But then thats why there is chocolate and vanilla ice cream. To each his own.

[Renesis]

Hes talking to the thread starter not you :P

[aolsux00]

your gear is junk then mate, get a new source..

No its good, just took a while to kick in and a high dose for me. I had the yellow semen and everything. Stopped for now, weather is getting too hot here...

[cj1capp]

This is the only time ever that I can say that I disagree with you PB. I fell that Magic is correct with his statement and feelings towards DNP. I believe I also had one of the most respected DNP sources alive today. These are my personal feelings from my own use. But then thats why there is chocolate and vanilla ice cream. To each his own.

retracting that statement , i thought you were were speaking to me PB.

[Idunno]

My cause is simply to prove that dnp is a drug like others, it is no poison by itself. Having this said I am not reccommending it, and I am not sure whether I'll ever do it again. And probably you don't know but h e ro in is a drug as well. It has it's medical use and, by the way what do you think the active compound in the common painkiller vicodin is? something very very similar to the aforementioned, that's why people get addicted to it..you are helping "my cause" with these examples...

Ecstacy was also administered as a drug for use in psych expereiments and counseling sessions to aid in introspection and inhibition... it's not considered a drug anymore...just because something was once used in a study and then found to be harmful doesn't make it a drug IMO.

and WOW guys, thanks for having such an AWESOME discussion citing sources and great informational material for us regular guys who are too lazy to do the footwork you have to present your respective cases. no matter who you think "won" this debate or who you agree with on this matter that is DNP use/abuse, I think the community here on steroid .com has been teh real winner for having such a great resource. Thanks guys!