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.
 
Millard, I am amazed that you don't see the weakness of CBS' case.
Well thought out summation for closing arguments lol

CBS does not need to make a case. He presented evidence of risk.

He does not need to prove that there is no safe dosage. He does not need to prove that @Docd187123 ' s harm reduction measures are ineffective.

What I'd like to see is your case.

(1) You have made the claim that there is a safe dosage of DNP and that this dosage is known.

(2) @Docd187123 made the claim that for the effectiveness of proposed harm reduction measures.

The burden is on you and @Docd187123

This is how it works. I'd like to see you both make a strong case.
 
CBS does not need to make a case. He presented evidence of risk.

He does not need to prove that there is no safe dosage. He does not need to prove that @Docd187123 ' s harm reduction measures are ineffective.

He has presented a one sided, misrepresentation of risk. If that's good enough for you so be it. I cannot force my ideas down your throat. For me, he is no better than the paleo dieters that demonize carbs/gluten bc they may have an intolerance to it or those who demonize dairy bc they themselves are lactose intolerant.

What I'd like to see is your case.

(1) You have made the claim that there is a safe dosage of DNP and that this dosage is known.

(2) @Docd187123 made the claim that for the effectiveness of proposed harm reduction measures.

The burden is on you and @Docd187123

This is how it works. I'd like to see you both make a strong case. No more deflection.

1) the study I referenced for one mentions a narrow window between a therapeutic dose and a toxic dose. The fact that there is a therapeutic window suggests there is a safe dose.

"There is a small margin between the beneficial effects and the toxic effects of DNP. The most common side effect reported with the therapeutic use of DNP is a rash [6, 3638]."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550200/#!po=27.1429

image.jpg

LOAEL (lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level) is 2/mg/kg/d suggesting a dose less than this can be safe.


"There is a small margin between the beneficial effects and the toxic effects of DNP. The most common side effect reported with the therapeutic use of DNP is a rash [6, 3638]."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550200/#!po=27.1429

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].

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550200/#!po=27.1429

2) one example of some of the harm reduction measures helping a patient survive an acute overdose

"However, there has been at least one case of survival following deliberate overdose in an 18-year-old female who developed typical features of DNP toxicity [tachycardia of 144 beats per minute, tachypnoea of 38–40 breaths per minute and hyperthermia of 39.7°C (103.4°F)] [70]. She was managed conservatively with intravenous fluids and ice packs to maintain her temperature below 38.3°C (101°F) and was discharged less than 48 h following admission to hospital with no adverse effects at the time of discharge. Ingestion of DNP was confirmed by analysis of gastric lavage contents."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550200/#!po=46.5517


"There is no specific antidote for DNP poisoning and all management strategies are based on case reports and expert opinions, but the key to the management of DNP poisoning lies in early recognition and a high index of suspicion [46]. Patients who have acutely overdosed on DNP in any form should be observed for at least 12 h, as no patient has been recorded to be asymptomatic beyond 10 h after an acute overdose [4]. During this time, their body temperature, cardiac rhythm, heart rate and oxygen saturation should be carefully monitored.

Although there are no previous reports of its use, in line with the previously published American Academy of Clinical Toxicology/European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxciologists position statements on the use of oral activated charcoal, we would recommend consideration of a single dose of activated charcoal in those individuals who present within an hour of ingestion. Previous autopsies have reported a yellow coloured fluid in the intestines of some cases; there is no evidence that this fluid contains DNP rather than staining following ingestion. Therefore, at this time although there is no evidence to support the use of multi-dose activated charcoal and/or whole bowel irrigation, we feel that the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk. External decontamination, if appropriate, should be undertaken by washing to reduce dermal exposure. Based on the underlying pathophysiological principles and previous experience, it would be advisable to avoid the use of salicylates as it may worsen the DNP-related toxidrome [77, 78]. Aggressive fluid resuscitation should be initiated, using cooled fluids in those with hyperthermia.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550200/#!po=46.5517

What I would like to see is an accurate representation of the risks and benefits of DNP, not a one sided circus misrepresenting the realities of the risks.
 
Millard, you also,said the following:

"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?"

^^^^ CBS is using death and cataracts as proof of it not being safe but when the actual figures representing the actual occurrences of these effects are presented in a more complete manner, they're no longer any good? He can argue the lack of safety of DNP using death and cataracts case studies but when the actual statistics are posted they're not good enough to prove him false?
 
Mislead Jim? Do you know the definition of mislead? I've never hesitated to correct someone when they ask if I'm a doctor. May I ask if you at least waited till the licenses went on sale before making your purchase Jim? Ah, here we are, we have you helping one of your patients lol

View attachment 22491

Projection whenever you are confronted with the bitter truth is your forte DD!

And there most certainly have been times when people have referred to you as "doctor" yet you failed to "correct them" recall the recent "NO IRON FOR ONE MONTH THREAD"
POST #71 Where Destined For Greasteness referred to our discussion as "the battle of the docs"?

Did you make ANY effort to correct him? NOPE, WRONG again!

Finally there is NO EFFECTIVE DOSE of DNP that is without significant side effects, and that is why it was removed from the market. Why is that so hard for you to understand!

Oh and just recently a DNP reseller was prosecuted for MANSLAUGHTER, and that's how IT SHOULD BE, IMO
 
Projection whenever you are confronted with the bitter truth is your forte DD!

And there most certainly have been times when people have referred to you as "doctor" yet you failed to "correct them" recall the recent "NO IRON FOR ONE MONTH THREAD"
POST #71 Where Destined For Greasteness referred to our discussion as "the battle of the docs"?

Did you make ANY effort to correct him? NOPE, WRONG again!

Finally there is NO EFFECTIVE DOSE of DNP that is without significant side effects, and that is why it was removed from the market. Why is that so hard for you to understand!

Oh and just recently a DNP reseller was prosecuted for MANSLAUGHTER, and that's how IT SHOULD BE, IMO

Are you dense or do you try hard to be this stupid. He referred to me in the battle of the docs bc it's in my name. He made no mention of actually believing what you implied. If he had I would've corrected him like I did Wonderpus and others here, as well as on other forums. I know this is above your head Jim but I promise if you try hard you'll get a gold star.....eventually.

What's so hard for you to understand that the risk of cataracts is around 1% FOR FEMALES, the risk of death is less than 0.01% and that includes occupational exposure toxicity. I have a 1 in 3000 chance of being struck by lightening. That's more of a chance of dying from lightening than from DNP.

PS Jimbo: day 2 of my DNP run but like oh my God, if I randomly stop posting you'll know why and I'll want you to recite your posts on DNP as part of my eulogy :rolleyes:
 
He has presented a one sided, misrepresentation of risk. If that's good enough for you so be it. I cannot force my ideas down your throat. For me, he is no better than the paleo dieters that demonize carbs/gluten bc they may have an intolerance to it or those who demonize dairy bc they themselves are lactose intolerant.



1) the study I referenced for one mentions a narrow window between a therapeutic dose and a toxic dose. The fact that there is a therapeutic window suggests there is a safe dose.

"There is a small margin between the beneficial effects and the toxic effects of DNP. The most common side effect reported with the therapeutic use of DNP is a rash [6, 3638]."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550200/#!po=27.1429

View attachment 22495

LOAEL (lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level) is 2/mg/kg/d suggesting a dose less than this can be safe.


"There is a small margin between the beneficial effects and the toxic effects of DNP. The most common side effect reported with the therapeutic use of DNP is a rash [6, 3638]."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550200/#!po=27.1429

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].

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550200/#!po=27.1429

2) one example of some of the harm reduction measures helping a patient survive an acute overdose

"However, there has been at least one case of survival following deliberate overdose in an 18-year-old female who developed typical features of DNP toxicity [tachycardia of 144 beats per minute, tachypnoea of 38–40 breaths per minute and hyperthermia of 39.7°C (103.4°F)] [70]. She was managed conservatively with intravenous fluids and ice packs to maintain her temperature below 38.3°C (101°F) and was discharged less than 48 h following admission to hospital with no adverse effects at the time of discharge. Ingestion of DNP was confirmed by analysis of gastric lavage contents."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550200/#!po=46.5517


"There is no specific antidote for DNP poisoning and all management strategies are based on case reports and expert opinions, but the key to the management of DNP poisoning lies in early recognition and a high index of suspicion [46]. Patients who have acutely overdosed on DNP in any form should be observed for at least 12 h, as no patient has been recorded to be asymptomatic beyond 10 h after an acute overdose [4]. During this time, their body temperature, cardiac rhythm, heart rate and oxygen saturation should be carefully monitored.

Although there are no previous reports of its use, in line with the previously published American Academy of Clinical Toxicology/European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxciologists position statements on the use of oral activated charcoal, we would recommend consideration of a single dose of activated charcoal in those individuals who present within an hour of ingestion. Previous autopsies have reported a yellow coloured fluid in the intestines of some cases; there is no evidence that this fluid contains DNP rather than staining following ingestion. Therefore, at this time although there is no evidence to support the use of multi-dose activated charcoal and/or whole bowel irrigation, we feel that the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk. External decontamination, if appropriate, should be undertaken by washing to reduce dermal exposure. Based on the underlying pathophysiological principles and previous experience, it would be advisable to avoid the use of salicylates as it may worsen the DNP-related toxidrome [77, 78]. Aggressive fluid resuscitation should be initiated, using cooled fluids in those with hyperthermia.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550200/#!po=46.5517

What I would like to see is an accurate representation of the risks and benefits of DNP, not a one sided circus misrepresenting the realities of the risks.


So this is what you contend is "evidence" of DNP safety, studies from the 1930, are you for real?
I query WHO or what company supported studies on DNP of this nature. I wonder bc many well recognized adverse effects of "drugs" were discounted as being "inconsequential" during the 1930s.


Good God the 1920-1930s were what many refer to as the evolutionary years of "therapeutic" medicine.

Why bc VERY FEW of the proven therapies of evidence based medicine had yet to be discovered. For example insulin and sulfa drugs were not discovered until the 1920, neither were widely available until the late 1930s and 40s.

Consequently bc of the limited number of established medical interventions sales agents and pharmacies could try to concoct their own "proven therapy", and many deaths and untold complications occurred as a consequence.

Ever heard of Arsenic being used for constipation or Ethylene Glycol, a sulfa solvent, for pneumonia.

Heck the FDA was not established the drug supervision and control agency, until congress acted accordingly in the late 1930s.

Finally rest assured any company that sells DNP is selling it as a pesticide rather than for human consumption and there should be no doubt the QA of the former pales in comparison to the latter.



Are you dense or do you try hard to be this stupid. He referred to me in the battle of the docs bc it's in my name. He made no mention of actually believing what you implied. If he had I would've corrected him like I did Wonderpus and others here, as well as on other forums. I know this is above your head Jim but I promise if you try hard you'll get a gold star.....eventually.

What's so hard for you to understand that the risk of cataracts is around 1% FOR FEMALES, the risk of death is less than 0.01% and that includes occupational exposure toxicity. I have a 1 in 3000 chance of being struck by lightening. That's more of a chance of dying from lightening than from DNP.

PS Jimbo: day 2 of my DNP run but like oh my God, if I randomly stop posting you'll know why and I'll want you to recite your posts on DNP as part of my eulogy :rolleyes:

Way to go DD you just emphasized my earlier point.

I suppose cataract formation that is NOT reversible and death are the only side effects your untrained mind thinks of when describing the safety profile of DNP.
So let's be clear these conventional side effects are GTG and "inconsequential" IYO
- Fatigue
- Malaise
- Vomiting
- Diarrhea
- Diaphoresis
- Fever
- Arthralgias
- Myalgias
- Dehydration
- Rash
- Headache
- Visual disturbances
- Tachardia
- Electrolyte disturbances
- Acidosis
- Hypotension
- Syncope and near syncope
- Ileus
- Rhabdomyolysis
- Azotemia
- Tachypenea
- Neuropathy

AND MANY MANY MORE have been reported by DNP users and physicians alike.

But that only seems logical, something you don't possess.

Next on your list of issues to argue over, the moon is made of cheese!
 
So this is what you contend is "evidence" of DNP safety, studies from the 1930, are you for real?
I query WHO or what company supported studies on DNP of this nature. I wonder bc many well recognized adverse effects of "drugs" were discounted as being "inconsequential" during the 1930s.


Good God the 1920-1930s were what many refer to as the evolutionary years of "therapeutic" medicine.

Why bc VERY FEW of the proven therapies of evidence based medicine had yet to be discovered. For example insulin and sulfa drugs were not discovered until the 1920, neither were widely available until the late 1930s and 40s.

Consequently bc of the limited number of established medical interventions sales agents and pharmacies could try to concoct their own "proven therapy", and many deaths and untold complications occurred as a consequence.

Ever heard of Arsenic being used for constipation or Ethylene Glycol, a sulfa solvent, for pneumonia.

Heck the FDA was not established the drug supervision and control agency, until congress acted accordingly in the late 1930s.

Finally rest assured any company that sells DNP is selling it as a pesticide rather than for human consumption and there should be no doubt the QA of the former pales in comparison to the latter.

You're free to post evidence, until then keep the bullshit at the farm.



Way to go DD you just emphasized my earlier point.

I suppose cataract formation that is NOT reversible and death are the only side effects your untrained mind thinks of when describing the safety profile of DNP.
So let's be clear these conventional side effects are GTG and "inconsequential" IYO
- Fatigue
- Malaise
- Vomiting
- Diarrhea
- Diaphoresis
- Fever
- Arthralgias
- Myalgias
- Dehydration
- Rash
- Headache
- Visual disturbances
- Tachardia
- Electrolyte disturbances
- Acidosis
- Hypotension
- Syncope and near syncope
- Ileus
- Rhabdomyolysis
- Azotemia
- Tachypenea
- Neuropathy

AND MANY MANY MORE have been reported by DNP users and physicians alike.

But that only seems logical, something you don't possess.

Next on your list of issues to argue over, the moon is made of cheese!

Fatigue Jim? Fatigue really? Lack of sleep gives me fatigue. Taco Bell gives me diarrhea. Ch**se gives me vomiting. Poison ivy and poison oak give me rashes. The common cold gives me a fever. Reading your posts on this topic gives me headaches (should your posts be considered poisonous now lol). Dropping water weight for my meet the other week upset my electrolyte balance. Drinking less than 1.5gallons of water leaves me dehydrated. Draining my own blood the first time almost gave me a syncopic episode. I can go on for almost all of these SUPER SERIOUS sides you mentioned but what's the point? All you see is what proves your confirmation bias.

So in the grand scheme of things Jim, considering many FDA APPROVED DRUGS also present many of these sides, who gives a fuck? You obviously do, maybe you're even scared of your own shadow who knows, but to me they are consequences I accept and he same goes for many others. So while I fight for my life from the fatigue you mentioned please pray for my would Jimbo and get your eulogy speech ready. Who knows the rash may kill me before the fatigue.
 
Oh why should I even try, bc those that listen to your foolish advice on DNP, deserve you as their "Doc" when the inevitable complications I posted arise!
 
CBS does not need to make a case. He presented evidence of risk.

He does not need to prove that there is no safe dosage. He does not need to prove that @Docd187123 ' s harm reduction measures are ineffective.

What I'd like to see is your case.

(1) You have made the claim that there is a safe dosage of DNP and that this dosage is known.

(2) @Docd187123 made the claim that for the effectiveness of proposed harm reduction measures.

The burden is on you and @Docd187123

This is how it works. I'd like to see you both make a strong case.

We are going around in circles here.
He presented evidence of a 1% risk for cataracts and less than that for death - you cannot accept the case studies he gave as evidence but ignore the overall statistics.
Its both or neither.

I also completely disagree with him not having to prove that there is no safe dosage with dnp - that is the TITLE of his thread.
And again my definition of "safe" is not zero risk, so CBS simply establishing that their are risks involved is NOT enough.


1) The safe dosage is the same as that which was used during the original clinical trials so 2-6mg/kg.
The cataract risk still remains at this dose, but I do not consider a drug to be "unsafe" because of a 1% risk of cataracts.
As for the risk of death, which was low anyway, at this dose it simply isn't going to happen if you ensure that body temp is below 99.1F.

2) One of the harm reduction measures is simply dose control.

Let's take the case studies CBS provided and dissect them shall we:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16803658

Person 1 - a female complains about feeling "fatigued and tired" for several weeks and shows up with a temperature of 103F with vomiting and muscle pain the night before. This person wasn't taking a low dose of dnp, it was a toxic dose - though the amount is unknown.

Person 2 - 28yr old male bodybuilder who was found with 850mg of dnp in his stomach and his roommate stated that he had taken other "bodybuilding supplements from mexico". This is another example of a toxic dose.

Neither of these examples do anything to establish that dnp isn't safe at low doses - which is what the entire purpose of this thread was.

In fact here is something to consider when interpreting data using case studies where a person died within the 2-6mg/kg range:
- Blood levels alone do NOT provide an accurate measure of dnp dosing since dnp gets distributed through tissues in the body. In other words, blood levels will always be lower than the actual dose taking. This point is absolutely VITAL because any case study determining dnp dose through blood levels alone will be inaccurate.

I will continue to add to my case but I wanted to make it clear that the first case study CBS used does NOTHING to show that dnp cannot be used safely at a lower dose.
It is also NOT an accurate representation of the risks associated with dnp - a point I will continue to make since everyone seems to be ignoring this.
Me & Doc are not disputing that dnp can be dangerous or that it involves risks - we are disputing the degree of risk.
 
Last edited:
Second study cited by CBS:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15487646#

Now this is an example of the extreme, rare cases that I was talking about.
To say that case studies like this are STRONGER evidence than the original CLINICAL trials is plain wrong in every sense.
To say that these case studies provide an accurate representation of the risks associated with dnp is, as I said before, moronic.

Interestingly, the case shows that the body temp was above 102F - a pattern is being established for the need to monitor body temp regularly in order to reduce the risk of harm.
 
So you would not consider a 1% risk of cataract formation as being an "unsafe" risk for a drug that is being used on an elective basis as a dietary aid.

Well let me suggest you would think MUCH differently if YOU were the one who developed such as complication and couldn't see the floor your squatting on!
 
So you would not consider a 1% risk of cataract formation as being an "unsafe" risk for a drug that is being used on an elective basis as a dietary aid.

Well let me suggest you would think MUCH differently if YOU were the one who developed such as complication and couldn't see the floor your squatting on!

Determining the degree of risk vs reward is a subjective topic - your entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

The chances of dying in a car accident is 1.2%, would you consider this to be an "unsafe" risk for a travel aid being used on an elective basis? Because I wouldn't.

So no - the scenario you suggested would not change my opinion whatsoever.
 
That's an apples to oranges comparison, bc you have to drive, yet the use of DNP is ELECTIVE.

And the LIFTIME risk of dying in a car accident is roughly 1 in 100. Use DNP for a lifetime and that 1:1000 risk would increase also.

(Oh and perhaps you forgotten the FDA decided the risk;benefit ratio was excessive FOR US ALL which is why DNP was removed from the market and rescheduled as a poison several years after it's introduction.)

Really it would change your mind, great then cover your EYES for only one day!

Heck I know use DNP and drive then we can increase the lifetime risk of death to what 2:100? Doesn't seem logical to me. Hey but then again we could also parachute as a hobby it's elective but "fun"
 
Last edited:
1) The safe dosage is the same as that which was used during the original clinical trials so 2-6mg/kg.
The cataract risk still remains at this dose, but I do not consider a drug to be "unsafe" because of a 1% risk of cataracts.

Cataract causes blindness. A 1% risk of cataracts is a MASSIVE risk.

As for the risk of death, which was low anyway, at this dose it simply isn't going to happen if you ensure that body temp is below 99.1F.

You have no evidence that death will not occur at this dose, nor do you have any evidence showing that it's possible to "ensure body temp is below 99.1F."
 
Cataract causes blindness. A 1% risk of cataracts is a MASSIVE risk.

You have no evidence that death will not occur at this dose, nor do you have any evidence showing that it's possible to "ensure body temp is below 99.1F."

Cataracts can be treated - it not a permanent condition, I should know since my sister in law had successful surgery for it.
1% is NOT a massive risk, stop your nonsense.

Not a single case report on a dnp related death reported a body temp of 99.1F or below - that is pretty strong evidence.
In other words, not a single person has EVER been reported to have died from dnp with body temp under control. That is a fact.

Plus I'm not finished dissecting your bullshit studies so stick around :)
 
Back
Top