Think DNP Can Be Used Safely? Think Again

CensoredBoardsSuck

Master
10+ Year Member
It's the time of year when bodybuilders start looking for ways to shed body fat and the interest for many invariably turns to DNP. There are articles on the internet that suggest DNP can be used safely if you're smart about it. Nothing could be further from the truth. DNP is a poison that has lead to cataracts, renal failure and deaths due to hyperthermia. It has an extremely narrow therapeutic index, i.e. the dose of DNP required to induce weight loss is very close to its lethal dose. In addition, its effects are unpredictable. A dose that was well tolerated in a previous cycle might not be tolerated on the next. As the use of DNP continues to gain in popularity, the death rate will continue to climb. There is no safe dose of DNP.

The first two studies below note the dosage of DNP in which deaths have occurred. These dosages are the same dosages currently being advertised as safe and the ones most often used by bodybuilders.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, deaths have occurred in people who ingested 3--46 mg of dinitrophenols per kg of body weight per day (3-46 mg/kg/day) for short periods or 1--4 mg/kg/day for long periods.

Reports of DNP poisoning related to weight loss appear to be becoming more common. McFee et al. (13) reported the death of a 22-year-old male 16 h after his last DNP dose, estimated at 600 mg/day over four days for weight loss.



Journal of Analytical Toxicology, Vol. 30, April 2006

Case Report
Two Deaths Attributed to the Use of 2,4-Dinitrophenol
Estuardo J. Miranda 1, lain M. Mclntyre 2, Dawn R. Parker 2, Ray D. Gary 2, and Barry K. Logan TM


We report the cases of two individuals, one in Tacoma, WA, and
the second in San Diego, CA, whose deaths were attributed to
ingestion of 2,4-dinitrophenol (2,4-DNP). 2,4-DNP has historically
been used as a herbicide and fungicide. By uncoupling
mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, the drug causes a
marked increase in fat metabolism that has led to its use to aid
weight loss. Both cases reported here involved its use for this
purpose. Features common to both cases included markedly
elevated body temperature, rapid pulse and respiration, yellow
coloring of the viscera at autopsy, history of use of weight loss or
body building supplements, and presence of a yellow powder at
the decedent's residence. Because of its acidic nature, the drug is
not detected in the basic drug fraction of most analytical protocols,
but it is recovered in the acid/neutral fraction of biological extracts
and can be measured by high-performance liquid chromatography
or gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The concentration
of 2,4-DNP in the admission blood samples of the two deaths
reported here were 36.1 and 28 rag/L, respectively. Death in both
cases was attributed to 2,4-DNP toxicity. Review of information
available on the internet suggests that, although banned,
2,4-DNP is still illicitly promoted for weight loss.
Introduction


[In the paper below, McFee et al. reported the death of a 22-year-old male 16 h after his last DNP dose, estimated at 600 mg/day over four days.]

Vet Hum Toxicol. 2004 Oct;46(5):251-4.
Dying to be thin: a dinitrophenol related fatality.
McFee RB1, Caraccio TR, McGuigan MA, Reynolds SA, Bellanger P.

Abstract
2, 4-dinitrophenol (DNP) was originally used as an explosive and later introduced in the 1930's to stimulate metabolism and promote weight loss. It's also a component of pesticides still available globally. Concerns about hyperpyrexia lead to DNP being banned as a dietary aid in 1938. A 22-y-old male presented to the Emergency Department (ED) with a change in mental status 16 h after his last dose of DNP. On admission he was diaphoretic and febrile with an oral temperature of 102 F, but lucid and cooperative. He became agitated and delirious. Intravenous midazolam was initiated with mechanical cooling. Pancuronium was administered later and the patient was intubated. Over the next hour the patient became bradycardic, then asystolic, and despite resuscitative efforts, died. Advertisements claim DNP safe at the dose our patient ingested. It is widely available and with the potential to cause severe toxicity is an understudied public health concern.



Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 48 (2007) 115–1
Dinitrophenol and obesity: An early twentieth-century regulatory dilemma
Eric Colman

Abstract

In the early 1930s, the industrial chemical dinitrophenol found widespread favor as a weight-loss drug, due principally to the work of Maurice Tainter, a clinical pharmacologist from Stanford University. Unfortunately the compound’s therapeutic index was razor thin and it was not until thousands of people suffered irreversible harm that mainstream physicians realized that dinitrophenol’s risks outweighed its benefits and abandoned its use. Yet, it took passage of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1938 before federal regulators had the ability to stop patent medicine men from selling dinitrophenol to Americans lured by the promise of a drug that would safely melt one’s fat away.


Cyril MacBryde, a physiologist from Washington University School of Medicine, reported ‘‘alarming functional changes’’ indicative of liver, heart, and muscle toxicity in his obese patients treated with small doses of dinitrophenol (MacBryde and Taussig, 1935).

But some physicians continued to believe that the drug was a reasonable therapeutic option for obese patients recalcitrant to dietary intervention when used in the properdose and under the care of a knowledgeable physician. Even this position, however, became untenable when young women taking therapeutic doses of dinitrophenol under the supervision of physicians started going blind (Horner et al., 1935). If the estimate of one San Francisco ophthalmologist is accurate, during a two and a half year span, as many as 2500 Americans may have lost their sight due to what became known as ‘‘dinitrophenol cataracts’’ (Horner, 1936).



Australas J Dermatol. 2014 Nov 4. doi: 10.1111/ajd.12237. [Epub ahead of print]
Cutaneous drug toxicity from 2,4-dinitrophenol (DNP): Case report and histological description.
Le P1, Wood B, Kumarasinghe SP.

Abstract
The use of 2,4-dinitrophenol (DNP) has regained popularity as a weight loss aid in the last two decades due to increased marketing to bodybuilders and the increasing availability of this banned substance via the Internet. 2,4-DNP is a drug of narrow therapeutic index and toxicity results in hyperthermia, diaphoresis, tachycardia, tachypnoea and possible cardiac arrest and death. Skin toxicity from 2,4-DNP has not been reported since the 1930s. We report a case of a 21-year-old bodybuilding enthusiast who presented with a toxic exanthem after taking 2,4-DNP, and describe the first skin biopsy findings in a case of 2,4-DNP toxicity.
 
Oh no vested interest right!
Good luck w the profit margin!

No response to the data so you retort to questioning my intent - LOL Jim you just confirmed what I said about you a few posts ago.

Well done :)

And FYI, I joined meso because the posts made by you, Dr Scally, etc were informative so I felt I might as well join.
And this is the first thead EVER were I've discussed DNP.

Please continue proving that you know nothing.
 
This is all I wanted to point out to interested readers - the OP is not an accurate representation of DNP, it does not establish that no dose is safe and I encourage all of theme to read through al the data in this thread and come to their own conclusions with regards to whether the risk/reward ratio of dnp is worth it.

That's your job, Pimpzilla - and one in which you haved failed to succeed. You obsession with the OP has been a yet another deflection from the fact that you have not supported your case. It's over, son. Time to call it a day. The emperor has no clothes. The fat lady has sung. Elvis has left the building.
 
"Think DNP can be used safely? Think again"
That is the title of your thread.

I have shown that nothing you posted, NOTHING, shows that dnp cannot be used safely - which was the WHOLE point of this thread.
You also confirmed that you felt the OP was an "accurate representation" of dnp - I showed that this was bullshit and showed how sadly uneducated you really are about this.

I am calling it a day because I've achieved what I wanted to - no one wishing to educate themselves on dnp will take this thread seriously.
 
I don't define non-medical use of drugs in terms of being safe. I define it in terms of risk. It's a much more effective way to educate/inform without the appearance of bias.
What's wrong with existing definitions as they are commonly used?

There is nothing wrong with using the "existing definitions as they are commonly used" however; CBS is claiming something and I am not understanding his definition of "safe" there is no way I can refute a statement without knowing what his definition of safe is.

Now you are actually answering the question in a very intelligent manner and I agree in describing things in terms of risk.

However, you did not state the word "safe" and since you didn't make the post originally you cannot support what CBS's definition of "safe" is. You cannot determine if he wrote this post with safe meaning death. Which is why the question was posed to him.
Luckily your post saved CBS because he has gone this whole time without answering what he meant with SAFE.

Either way at this point I am not curious on what CBS means because he doesn't even define his terms. Working in terms or risks is much more logical and perhaps CBS should have used the term risk in the beginning.
"THANK GOD MILLARD PHEWW I DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT" - CBS

Ironically, CBS isn't the one using avoidance of death as proof of DNP safety.
Which is sillier? Citing death as proof of DNP danger? Or citing avoidance of death as proof of DNP safety?

I wouldn't be able to answer which is sillier. I wouldn't establish my terms in that demeanor. Going to piggyback off you and say I would present it as risk ;)

Safe suggests absence of risk. Unsafe suggests presence of risk. Risk exists on a continuum. The degree of risk and nature of risks varies with different drugs.

Trying to defend the non-medical use of any drug as safe hasn't been a very effective strategy. That's why I prefer discussing it in terms of associated risks.

You prefer discussing it as risk, and I agree. But we couldn't and still haven't gotten an answer from CBS on what his operational definition is.
Had CBS posted studies and NOT stated anything about them the situation would have been different so let's see if we can refute his statements and if the evidence he presented supports HIS STATEMENTS:

It's the time of year when bodybuilders start looking for ways to shed body fat and the interest for many invariably turns to DNP. There are articles on the internet that suggest DNP can be used safely if you're smart about it. Nothing could be further from the truth. DNP is a poison that has lead to cataracts, renal failure and deaths due to hyperthermia..
"Used safely" I do not understand what he means with safe. Seriously.. I feel the sticky on DNP use provides a lot of information on DNP use, and by my definition of safe it can be. Either way the other statements I have no problem with.


It has an extremely narrow therapeutic index, i.e. the dose of DNP required to induce weight loss is very close to its lethal dose.
Here is where the problems start... Therapeutic indexes in general is a very bad way to determine a drug's safety as it is not taking in consideration drug interactions. For example, morphine, xanax and alcohol. Morphine and xanax are much "safer" drugs on the therapeutic index. Alcohol has a lower TPI which I can understand to a certain extent. But keep in mind, therapeutic index are intended to show a ratio of the toxic dose divided by effective dose.

So for this discussion and the statement he made was that the effective dose is close to the lethal dose. Ok, so what I then do is go through CBS's studies where they just stated what he said. Basically he is parroting a study without understanding what they are talking about.

I couldn't find where they stated the lethal dose was in that study and honestly I couldn't find what they assumed was the therapeutic dose. I assume around 300mg/day as that is what they are citing others use and the above quote being for a 80kg person 240mg-400mg/day.


So first of all I would say the therapeutic dose they used was too high, anyway I found another study stating the lethal dose being 4.3mg/kg. Now I understand the difference between lethal dose and toxic dose. However, CBS chose to state LETHAL DOSE which isn't even what is used on humans. For therapeutic doses you refer to TOXIC DOSES. Because we humans do care if we go blind before we die... But since CBS stated lethal dose I will entertain his idea although LETHAL DOSE and THERAPEUTIC INDEX for humans doesn't go together... Lethal dose is for animals in regards to therapeutic index. Toxic dose is for humans in regards to therapeutic index.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550200/
The lowest published lethal human oral dose of DNP is 4.3 mg/kg [76]; the doses reported in the published acute and suicidal fatalities range from 2.8 g to an estimated 5 g. The highest reported dose taken in acute overdose associated with survival was a woman who took 2.4 g with no complications [70].

Anyway, to continue to refute CBS statement which doesn't make sense. According to above study the lowest published human oral dose is 4.3mg/kg(this study was posted in 2011.) For a 80kg person that would be 334mg/day. Also, note the woman made of steel who took 2.4 grams with no complications LMAO.

Anyway let's make a therapeutic index for DNP in regards to the information provided(it will be inaccurate because you need to account for 50% of the population,) although we will use LETHAL DOSE because CBS didn't know that applied to animals we will use it for humans.

Tainter treated nine obese patients with 3–5 mg/kg of dinitrophenol for up to 10 weeks (Cutting et al., 1933). Weight-loss averaged about 20 pounds and not one subject complained of side effects.

I am not going to use Tainter's ED but a flat 200mg should work, which should be the highest anybody uses anyway. Lethal dose is taken from the median of above study "2.8grams to 5grams,"
3900/200 broken down to 18.5:1

So with a Therapeutic Index(it's not going to an accurate number because Lethal dose isn't even used for humans but I am providing it because CBS said LETHAL DOSE)

18.5:1 it makes it a little safer than cocaine and alcohol, according to the therapeutic index.

Like I said before though, therapeutic indexes don't mean shit to me. I just wrote this to disprove CBS's statement which is quoted again below.
It has an extremely narrow therapeutic index, i.e. the dose of DNP required to induce weight loss is very close to its lethal dose.

On to the next one:

In addition, its effects are unpredictable. A dose that was well tolerated in a previous cycle might not be tolerated on the next. As the use of DNP continues to gain in popularity, the death rate will continue to climb. There is no safe dose of DNP.

According to the study you posted the effects are known and can be assessed by providing a mg/kg dose. Or like when people ACTUALLY take DNP on from AAS boards they titrate up. Which makes your whole statement false as risk-prevention is already taken by educated people. Maybe if you had taken DNP you would know that you titrate up the dose to avoid your whole statement.

I didn't see anything about tolerance on repeated trials of the drug from your studies so where are you finding a large variance in dosing from repeated users?

Is the effects unpredictable due to tolerance?

Where did you find that?

'CUZ YOUR STUDIES ARE NOT BACKING IT UP!!

Honestly, this post is for Millard and not CBS; had CBS not stated anything before the studies I think that would have made life easier for him.
 
There is nothing wrong with using the "existing definitions as they are commonly used" however; CBS is claiming something and I am not understanding his definition of "safe" there is no way I can refute a statement without knowing what his definition of safe is.

Now you are actually answering the question in a very intelligent manner and I agree in describing things in terms of risk.

However, you did not state the word "safe" and since you didn't make the post originally you cannot support what CBS's definition of "safe" is. You cannot determine if he wrote this post with safe meaning death. Which is why the question was posed to him.
Luckily your post saved CBS because he has gone this whole time without answering what he meant with SAFE.

Either way at this point I am not curious on what CBS means because he doesn't even define his terms. Working in terms or risks is much more logical and perhaps CBS should have used the term risk in the beginning.
"THANK GOD MILLARD PHEWW I DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT" - CBS

 
This is the reason why there is no reason trying to have an intelligent conversation with you. Millard started proving your point making you look much better. It's a sandbox where everybody is throwing sand at each other. We are all looking like fucking idiots at this point.

Millard is probably thinking "I tried to create a forum for people to have intelligent and constructive discussions, and I end up with this BS."

We honestly need Millard to sit and manage our "discussions" because it is becoming so fucking dumb here. Yes, I am also contributing to the dumbness too. - CBS can I structure my sentence like that?

Millard, I think you should start hiding posts or "minimizing" so you can click to expand. But then again we post 1000 posts a minute..
Moderators to "minimize so you can expand" posts are needed IMO, it would create a better forum. Or create a "mark as spam" type of deal on paragraphs or whole posts and then you can approve to minimize the BS. I don't know Millard, I just think there is so much good information here but it gets hidden because of all the BS we post. Me included...
@Millard Baker
Am out of this thread...

Nice contribution CBS, you are a prime example of how a large mouth can convince people. Nothing to back your initial statement up you just write a lot and to newbies you can probably convince them..

One last edit: All in all, I don't use DNP nor do I feel the need to use it. Same with clenbuterol, the risk/benefit ratio is too high.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, this post is for Millard and not CBS; had CBS not stated anything before the studies I think that would have made life easier for him.

Easier for me? LMFAO This has been a joke for me, son. I've got you three clowns running around chasing phantoms and committing logical fallacies right and left and you still don't realize you lost.
 
Easier for me? LMFAO This has been a joke for me, son. I've got you three clowns running around chasing phantoms and committing logical fallacies right and left and you still don't realize you lost.

I broke down your initial post easily. You use Lethal Dose for therapeutic doses in humans huh? Respond to my post am gonna copy&paste what is relevant for you to answer. Never-mind you are going to deflect for another 5 pages.. Fudge I need to repaste your quotes.... whatever.. You don't have anything to say anyway, spent enough time on entertaining your non-sense. Your English/grammar skills are good, stick around the forum so you can contribute with something good at least. Stop reading studies and making statements about them. Post them, but don't express your opinion on what they say unless you understand them. Edit: I reposted the quotes and responses so it is easier to read. Now CBS keep in mind:

DEFLECT DEFLECT DEFLECT

DO NOT DISCUSS WHAT IS PRESENTED BELOW, MAKE HUMOROUS COMMENTS, CHANGE THE SUBJECT BUT ALWAYS

DEFLECT DEFLECT DEFLECT


Had CBS posted studies and NOT stated anything about them the situation would have been different so let's see if we can refute his statements and if the evidence he presented supports HIS STATEMENTS:
It's the time of year when bodybuilders start looking for ways to shed body fat and the interest for many invariably turns to DNP. There are articles on the internet that suggest DNP can be used safely if you're smart about it. Nothing could be further from the truth. DNP is a poison that has lead to cataracts, renal failure and deaths due to hyperthermia.

"Used safely" I do not understand what he means with safe. Seriously.. I feel the sticky on DNP use provides a lot of information on DNP use, and by my definition of safe it can be. Either way the other statements I have no problem with.

It has an extremely narrow therapeutic index, i.e. the dose of DNP required to induce weight loss is very close to its lethal dose. In addition, its effects are unpredictable. A dose that was well tolerated in a previous cycle might not be tolerated on the next. As the use of DNP continues to gain in popularity, the death rate will continue to climb. There is no safe dose of DNP.

Here is where the problems start... Therapeutic indexes in general is a very bad way to determine a drug's safety as it is not taking in consideration drug interactions. For example, morphine, xanax and alcohol. Morphine and xanax are much "safer" drugs on the therapeutic index. Alcohol has a lower TPI which I can understand to a certain extent. But keep in mind, therapeutic index are intended to show a ratio of the toxic dose divided by effective dose.

So for this discussion and the statement he made was that the effective dose is close to the lethal dose. Ok, so what I then do is go through CBS's studies where they just stated what he said. Basically he is parroting a study without understanding what they are talking about.

I couldn't find where they stated the lethal dose was in that study and honestly I couldn't find what they assumed was the therapeutic dose. I assume around 300mg/day as that is what they are citing others use and the above quote being for a 80kg person 240mg-400mg/day.


So first of all I would say the therapeutic dose they used was too high, anyway I found another study stating the lethal dose being 4.3mg/kg. Now I understand the difference between lethal dose and toxic dose. However, CBS chose to state LETHAL DOSE which isn't even what is used on humans. For therapeutic doses you refer to TOXIC DOSES. Because we humans do care if we go blind before we die... But since CBS stated lethal dose I will entertain his idea although LETHAL DOSE and THERAPEUTIC INDEX for humans doesn't go together... Lethal dose is for animals in regards to therapeutic index. Toxic dose is for humans in regards to therapeutic index.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550200/

Anyway, to continue to refute CBS statement which doesn't make sense. According to above study the lowest published human oral dose is 4.3mg/kg(this study was posted in 2011.) For a 80kg person that would be 334mg/day. Also, note the woman made of steel who took 2.4 grams with no complications LMAO.

Anyway let's make a therapeutic index for DNP in regards to the information provided(it will be inaccurate because you need to account for 50% of the population,) although we will use LETHAL DOSE because CBS didn't know that applied to animals we will use it for humans.

I am not going to use Tainter's ED but a flat 200mg should work, which should be the highest anybody uses anyway. Lethal dose is taken from the median of above study "2.8grams to 5grams,"
3900/200 broken down to 18.5:1

So with a Therapeutic Index(it's not going to an accurate number because Lethal dose isn't even used for humans but I am providing it because CBS said LETHAL DOSE)

18.5:1 it makes it a little safer than cocaine and alcohol, according to the therapeutic index.

Like I said before though, therapeutic indexes don't mean shit to me. I just wrote this to disprove CBS's statement which is quoted again below.


On to the next one:
In addition, its effects are unpredictable.A dose that was well tolerated in a previous cycle might not be tolerated on the next. As the use of DNP continues to gain in popularity, the death rate will continue to climb. There is no safe dose of DNP.


According to the study you posted the effects are known and can be assessed by providing a mg/kg dose. Or like when people ACTUALLY take DNP on from AAS boards they titrate up. Which makes your whole statement false as risk-prevention is already taken by educated people. Maybe if you had taken DNP you would know that you titrate up the dose to avoid your whole statement.

I didn't see anything about tolerance on repeated trials of the drug from your studies so where are you finding a large variance in dosing from repeated users?

Is the effects unpredictable due to tolerance?

Where did you find that?

'CUZ YOUR STUDIES ARE NOT BACKING IT UP!!
 
Last edited:
I broke down your initial post easily. You use Lethal Dose for therapeutic doses in humans huh? Respond to my post am gonna copy&paste what is relevant for you to answer. Never-mind you are going to deflect for another 5 pages..

Had CBS posted studies and NOT stated anything about them the situation would have been different so let's see if we can refute his statements and if the evidence he presented supports HIS STATEMENTS:

"Used safely" I do not understand what he means with safe. Seriously.. I feel the sticky on DNP use provides a lot of information on DNP use, and by my definition of safe it can be. Either way the other statements I have no problem with.

Here is where the problems start... Therapeutic indexes in general is a very bad way to determine a drug's safety as it is not taking in consideration drug interactions. For example, morphine, xanax and alcohol. Morphine and xanax are much "safer" drugs on the therapeutic index. Alcohol has a lower TPI which I can understand to a certain extent. But keep in mind, therapeutic index are intended to show a ratio of the toxic dose divided by effective dose.

So for this discussion and the statement he made was that the effective dose is close to the lethal dose. Ok, so what I then do is go through CBS's studies where they just stated what he said. Basically he is parroting a study without understanding what they are talking about.

I couldn't find where they stated the lethal dose was in that study and honestly I couldn't find what they assumed was the therapeutic dose. I assume around 300mg/day as that is what they are citing others use and the above quote being for a 80kg person 240mg-400mg/day.


So first of all I would say the therapeutic dose they used was too high, anyway I found another study stating the lethal dose being 4.3mg/kg. Now I understand the difference between lethal dose and toxic dose. However, CBS chose to state LETHAL DOSE which isn't even what is used on humans. For therapeutic doses you refer to TOXIC DOSES. Because we humans do care if we go blind before we die... But since CBS stated lethal dose I will entertain his idea although LETHAL DOSE and THERAPEUTIC INDEX for humans doesn't go together... Lethal dose is for animals in regards to therapeutic index. Toxic dose is for humans in regards to therapeutic index.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550200/

Anyway, to continue to refute CBS statement which doesn't make sense. According to above study the lowest published human oral dose is 4.3mg/kg(this study was posted in 2011.) For a 80kg person that would be 334mg/day. Also, note the woman made of steel who took 2.4 grams with no complications LMAO.

Anyway let's make a therapeutic index for DNP in regards to the information provided(it will be inaccurate because you need to account for 50% of the population,) although we will use LETHAL DOSE because CBS didn't know that applied to animals we will use it for humans.

I am not going to use Tainter's ED but a flat 200mg should work, which should be the highest anybody uses anyway. Lethal dose is taken from the median of above study "2.8grams to 5grams,"
3900/200 broken down to 18.5:1

So with a Therapeutic Index(it's not going to an accurate number because Lethal dose isn't even used for humans but I am providing it because CBS said LETHAL DOSE)

18.5:1 it makes it a little safer than cocaine and alcohol, according to the therapeutic index.

Like I said before though, therapeutic indexes don't mean shit to me. I just wrote this to disprove CBS's statement which is quoted again below.


On to the next one:



According to the study you posted the effects are known and can be assessed by providing a mg/kg dose. Or like when people ACTUALLY take DNP on from AAS boards they titrate up. Which makes your whole statement false as risk-prevention is already taken by educated people. Maybe if you had taken DNP you would know that you titrate up the dose to avoid your whole statement.

I didn't see anything about tolerance on repeated trials of the drug from your studies so where are you finding a large variance in dosing from repeated users?

Is the effects unpredictable due to tolerance?

Where did you find that?

'CUZ YOUR STUDIES ARE NOT BACKING IT UP!!

Honestly, this post is for Millard and not CBS; had CBS not stated anything before the studies I think that would have made life easier for him.

Thought you said you were done? I guess that was just more of the bullshit we've come to expect from you. You did get my hopes up, though. And now you're crying for moderation. Go back to wherever you were shilling gear - you bring nothing of value to Meso.
 
Hey Millard the moderator, kind of has a pleasant ring to it.

Yet Millard is fully aware in ones quest to improve the flow of a discussion on any forum an owner, administrator, moderator can quite easily become "Millard the Monster".

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Sorry but one individuals view of Meso being broke bc another won't "define" the word safety, when an operational definition already exists, does not justify throwing out the baby with the bath water.
 
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Sorry but one individuals view of Meso being broke bc another won't "define" the word safety, when an operational definition already exists, does not justify throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Yes, if you are claiming a product is safe I want to know what your definition of "safe" is. Claiming something is SAFE is a really fucking dumb term in layman's words, as Millard stated, RISK is better ;)

No, the operational definition DID NOT exist. He conjured SAFE into the title of the thread and added statements which are not backed up by his studies posted. You might want to read my post....

It is broken, we have 10 pages now and it's full of shit. Millard jumped in to make this thread semi-intellectual and now it has fallen to shit again. CBS doesn't even comment on my post on his original statement.

I looked below. You know what I saw? This post! Do you want me to discuss my post? LMFAO
Damn good post!
 
Last edited:
i have found the safest way to use dnp is to break open the caps mix it with water then put it in a sprayer and spray it in your garden as a pesticide..

WELL SAID, the stuffs a damn good pesticide, and the concentration from contaminated ground water pales in comparison to the blood levels "needed" for effective therapeutic dosing, if the latter is even quantifiable.
 
This is getting more than silly. We can go back and forth and say many things supporting both sides. Putting aside ego and big swinging dick complex lets look at the basic question......Why use DNP ? When is its use prudent? When is its use necessary? When you are too lazy to do it naturally? Well ok there are many shortcuts we all take but what can you accomplish with it that you cant naturally or with other compounds with little to no controversy surrounding their use or the safety therof?
I just cant see where using it is a prudent option. I see these precautions and this and that you should to to ensure it is safe or even bearable. Why the fuck would I want to add an entire supplementation regiment so I can take one compound that will accomplish what I can on my own without anything or i can accomplish with the use of other compounds that require virtually no changes to be administered where none of this BS is necessary?
I think too many factors come into play to make this a prudent choice. Hell even the source and being able to trust the strength and dosage you are getting. It doesnt even have to be you that fucks up and the cost could be devastating, and for what? 10lbs of bodyfat I could lose anyway.
To each his own but I look at this and I think how many people are paying their bills doing this? How many peoples families well being relies on them being able to come in cut to the point where dnp is the only thing that could do it?Almost none of us. It almost becomes this ego thing like yeah im going to take it. Big fucking deal. I dont consider those people trail blazers, in fact I kind of consider them lazy or foolish.
In the basic costs/benefits analysis for me DNP make no sense at all. For me I cant see who it would make sense for. Those trying to prove something? For what? Ego? To be right? Thats immature and foolish. People wanna be big bad trailbalzers and take DNP - go right ahead. The effects it has on one psychically are not healthy. That cant be argued. Is it deadly? Well people have died but they have died from many things but for what end?
If someone told me look you can take route 1 and lose 10lbs with no adverse heath effects or risks and it will take 30 days OR you can take route 2 which will put a high amount of undue strain or stress on your body and there are some potential serious health risks , be them in a small number of cases or not, people have died. This option will take 14 days. Call me stupid but Ill take the first option.
This arguing because people want to be right or want to or feel the need to parade around with some false sense of bravado that they walk the edge is fuking bullshit. There are risks associated with DNP use that make it foolish in my mind From a quality source that is accurately dosed, to a therapeutic and lethal dose that is far to close for some individuals to be safe just makes no fucking sense. You do you, ill do me but to pretend this stuff is equivalent to flintsones vitamins is bullshit, to say if you take it you will die is bullshit too. That being said from a cost benefits standpoint and general common sense reasoning to say it is an excellent choice for losing bodyfat is just assenine IMO.
 
The problem obviously isn't about DNP in this thread, it's our lack of ability to have an intellectual discussion about a topic.

After 10 pages, what did we accomplish?

There are a lot of smart people in this community and we all have a lot to learn from each other. It took @Jimmyinkedup to get on the thread and slap us all on the head for acting like morons for us to stop.

Things are gonna die down now for a little bit and then another thread will pop up and same thing will happen again.

Honestly, I believe in some sort of formatting or supervision for us unless we can start changing how we discuss. It was said if it ain't broke don't fix it... It's broken and that's why everybody is running from the thread with their tails between their legs realizing we have been acting like children in a sand-box.

Or I will just start watching more from the side-lines on how fun it can be watching grown men on AAS argue. :D

I don't need to have the last word, I just want to state the problem isn't about DNP. We need to learn how to discuss with each other a lot better.
 
I am calling it a day because I've achieved what I wanted to - no one wishing to educate themselves on dnp will take this thread seriously.

Millard is probably thinking "I tried to create a forum for people to have intelligent and constructive discussions, and I end up with this BS."

We honestly need Millard to sit and manage our "discussions" because it is becoming so fucking dumb here.

This is getting more than silly. We can go back and forth and say many things supporting both sides.

It's broken and that's why everybody is running from the thread with their tails between their legs realizing we have been acting like children in a sand-box.

We need to learn how to discuss with each other a lot better.
This is the nature of debate. Going back and forth. Providing supporting evidence. Making and dissecting arguments. Nitpicking over statistics and interpretation. Pointing out logical errors. Not allowing anyone to assert statements without scrutiny.

Anyone who wishes to learn about DNP should absolutely read this thread. It is full of information from "both sides" who are highly motivated at making their best case. If you want a one-sided "debate", then you're not really interested in education.

@Sworder you are still right that there is a lot of room for improvement. Everyone here knows how I feel about ad hominem arguments. Just stop with the personal attacks. Some people make them because they are incapable of supporting their arguments. Some people make them because it's an effective way to throw their opponent off. Some people just enjoy it. Either way, anyone who is truly motivated in advancing the debate will avoid them.

There could certainly be higher-level debates on DNP and stronger arguments could be made and the ad hominems could be reduced. But overall, this has been an informative thread.

Just because there's no group hug in sight doesn't mean it hasn't been productive :)
 
Back
Top