- Joined
- Feb 22, 2013
- Messages
- 12,922
- Reaction score
- 9,348
- Points
- 113
https://medium.com/@anthonyroberts/f...s-f9187411a24b
Feds Getting Serious About Peptides, SARMS, and Research Chems
Disclaimers stating ?not for human use? won?t protect vendors ? they may result in additional charges. And misrepresentation to a credit card processor or bank can result in charges of money laundering and wire fraud.
Online vendors are under increased scrutiny from the Food and Drug Administration, and ?not for human use? disclaimers have been increasingly used to charge companies with fraud. Although I have no way to confirm a solid number, I?ve heard (and believe) that 20+ companies are the subject of active investigations.
That number is supported by readily observable events, including a noticeable uptick in federal enforcement actions in the peptide, SARM, and research chemical world as of late. This is a likely result of several factors, notably the rise in popularity of peptides and SARMs, the relative necessity of research chems, the fact that there are confidential informants currently bartering the next few years of their lives for the next few years of several other people?s, and the relative ease with which a case can be made against these companies.
Addressing these factors in order, the first (a rise in the popularity of SARMs and peptides), is no surprise. They?re effective, widely and openly advertised, and relatively inexpensive. A few of them (IGF-I, for example) remain largely undetectable. For the customer, as these are performance enhancing drugs that lack a schedule (steroids are schedule 3, for example, while peptides and SARMs are unscheduled), they?re a no-brainer. Feds don?t bust people for buying research chems, SARMs, or peptides. As I?ve said before, they bust hookers, not johns. Online purchasers of these drugs have little to fear from law enforcement.
As to research chems (here I?m only talking about peri-cycle ancillary drugs like Clomid, Arimidex, and clenbuterol, not SARMs or peptides), it?s long been established protocol to buy them separately from a (steroid) cycle. More (or bigger) packages arriving from overseas sources could draw more attention, and legitimate pharmaceuticals (i.e. not generic research chems) are far more expensive.
My position on informants is likewise well-known, as are my actions when I was once afforded the opportunity (ask around). I have serious concerns with anyone claiming to be a friend or member of the community (any community) who propagates this type of activity.
To my final point, these types of cases are easy for FDA to investigate and for DOJ to prosecute. This applies not only to SARMs, peptides, and research chems, but to kratom as well ? although in the case of kratom (a dietary supplement), potential charges for actual sales would probably be less severe than charges related to fraudulently claiming intended use other than human consumption.
While the social media clickerati will debate the pros and cons of disclaiming these types of products as ?not for human use,? it?s become painfully obvious that these types of disclaimers are not having their intended effect; they neither dissuade humans from using the products, nor Department of Justice from prosecuting their purveyors.
A company in the kratom industry, Green House Kratom, even went so far as to send a letter to the FDA restating all of their ?not for human or animal consumption? disclaimers (despite actively encouraging consumption on social media, per documents provided to MuckRock by FDA).
FULL ARTICLE HERE: https://medium.com/@anthonyroberts/f...s-f9187411a24b
Feds Getting Serious About Peptides, SARMS, and Research Chems
Disclaimers stating ?not for human use? won?t protect vendors ? they may result in additional charges. And misrepresentation to a credit card processor or bank can result in charges of money laundering and wire fraud.
Online vendors are under increased scrutiny from the Food and Drug Administration, and ?not for human use? disclaimers have been increasingly used to charge companies with fraud. Although I have no way to confirm a solid number, I?ve heard (and believe) that 20+ companies are the subject of active investigations.
That number is supported by readily observable events, including a noticeable uptick in federal enforcement actions in the peptide, SARM, and research chemical world as of late. This is a likely result of several factors, notably the rise in popularity of peptides and SARMs, the relative necessity of research chems, the fact that there are confidential informants currently bartering the next few years of their lives for the next few years of several other people?s, and the relative ease with which a case can be made against these companies.
Addressing these factors in order, the first (a rise in the popularity of SARMs and peptides), is no surprise. They?re effective, widely and openly advertised, and relatively inexpensive. A few of them (IGF-I, for example) remain largely undetectable. For the customer, as these are performance enhancing drugs that lack a schedule (steroids are schedule 3, for example, while peptides and SARMs are unscheduled), they?re a no-brainer. Feds don?t bust people for buying research chems, SARMs, or peptides. As I?ve said before, they bust hookers, not johns. Online purchasers of these drugs have little to fear from law enforcement.
As to research chems (here I?m only talking about peri-cycle ancillary drugs like Clomid, Arimidex, and clenbuterol, not SARMs or peptides), it?s long been established protocol to buy them separately from a (steroid) cycle. More (or bigger) packages arriving from overseas sources could draw more attention, and legitimate pharmaceuticals (i.e. not generic research chems) are far more expensive.
My position on informants is likewise well-known, as are my actions when I was once afforded the opportunity (ask around). I have serious concerns with anyone claiming to be a friend or member of the community (any community) who propagates this type of activity.
To my final point, these types of cases are easy for FDA to investigate and for DOJ to prosecute. This applies not only to SARMs, peptides, and research chems, but to kratom as well ? although in the case of kratom (a dietary supplement), potential charges for actual sales would probably be less severe than charges related to fraudulently claiming intended use other than human consumption.
While the social media clickerati will debate the pros and cons of disclaiming these types of products as ?not for human use,? it?s become painfully obvious that these types of disclaimers are not having their intended effect; they neither dissuade humans from using the products, nor Department of Justice from prosecuting their purveyors.
A company in the kratom industry, Green House Kratom, even went so far as to send a letter to the FDA restating all of their ?not for human or animal consumption? disclaimers (despite actively encouraging consumption on social media, per documents provided to MuckRock by FDA).
FULL ARTICLE HERE: https://medium.com/@anthonyroberts/f...s-f9187411a24b
