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.
 
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 :)

Whether cataracts can be remedied is not germane, you said you did not consider a !% risk of cataract formation "unsafe" and I stated their development would change your calloused mind, cover your eyes one out of say 100 days and ask your sister if she could have PREVENTED their formation would she have done so?

Ironic how many take for granted that which THEY HAVE until it's gone!
 
Actually for many people that is just NOT true, unless one want's to "bike" to work. It's a nonsensical comparison!

Its a nonsensical comparison for YOU. For me its a nonsensical statement to say that you HAVE TO drive.
I see no reason why you cant "bike" to work - sure it will take a bit longer, but its good exercise for you :)

We can continue this BS portion of the thread later if you wish, let me finish looking CBS' evidence first.
 
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 :)

So what! Are you now suggesting everyone use a rectal probe (or obtain Q 30 min rectal temps) while driving to parachute using DNP. ITS ELECTIVE FELLA and that's why the FDA banned this junk.
 
Cataracts can be treated - it not a permanent condition, I should know since my sister in law had successful surgery for it.

Cataract surgery is not without risk. And I suspect most of those requiring eye surgery will view the few pounds lost as a poor tradeoff, especially when compared to the cost of surgery ($3,230 per eye for straightforward cataract surgery as of 2013).

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

Let me know when you start.
 
Good lord the amount of complete nonsense you two are coming up with now.

1 - the figure I gave was from the same source that you used but a different year, 2001 or 2005 IIRC. The exact probability was 1 in 85.

2 - I CLEARLY said to Jim that we stop the BS portion of this thread and let me finish dissecting your studies because the third one you used is so full of crap its hilarious :)
 
Its a nonsensical comparison for YOU. For me its a nonsensical statement to say that you HAVE TO drive.
I see no reason why you cant "bike" to work - sure it will take a bit longer, but its good exercise for you :)

We can continue this BS portion of the thread later if you wish, let me finish looking CBS' evidence first.

These irrational arguments only seem to occur when those supporting such nonsense have a vested interest in DNP sales.
 
The third study CBS used:

https://thinksteroids.com/community/attachments/dnp-pdf.11155/

My main issue with Colman is this portion that CBS highlighted in bold:
"...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)."

The Horner paper he references says NOTHING about 2500 cases so that is pure fiction created by Colman.
Horner estimated an incident rate of between 0.1-1% as CBS correctly pointed out earlier - therefore it is impossible for their to be 2500 cases of cataracts since Horner documented only 100,000 or so users.
I have no idea where Colman got the 2500 number from but it did NOT come from Horner.

I'm also curious as to why Colman couldn't be bothered to talk about Horner's 1941 paper?
This is the paper where Horner reported the cases of cataracts to be "over 164" based on 100,000 or so cases. I wont go into the speculation stuff about the number POSSIBLY being higher because then we have to look at the overall user number also POSSIBLY being higher, etc.

This entire paper is full of misinterpretation like this, which is why it is yet another example of NOT providing an accurate evaluation of the risks on dnp.
 
These irrational arguments only seem to occur when those supporting such nonsense have a vested interest in DNP sales.

LOL Jim you make me laugh - so to defend the right to use a compound I MUST be selling it?
Its an interesting pattern where people inevitably decide to question someone's intentions and/or insult them personally when they realise that the debate isn't going the way they intended.
I've experienced this before on other boards - I've yet to come out looking worse.
 
Oh no it's how you refuse to accept a logical explanation about why DNP should not be used which justifies such a comment.

After all you did say you knew of companies that sell DNP did you not?
 
Oh no it's how you refuse to accept a logical explanation about why DNP should not be used which compels that statement.

After all you did say you knew of companies that sell DNP did you not?

Yes...because I've used dnp multiple times, that's how I know companies that sell it LOL.

If a 1% cataracts risk is sufficient for you to say dnp is unsafe that's fine, as I said your entitled to your opinion.
I never said it wasn't logical, jus that it wasn't sufficient for ME.

I believe in letting readers decide the risk/reward ratio for themselves.
You cannot state categorically that it is or isn't worth the risk since this is YOUR PERSONAL opinion. The same applies to me.
 
Final study CBS used:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25367505#

This one is pretty self explanatory.
An allergic reaction to the dnp can cause a skin rash, in some cases a severe skin rash, and this tends to occur in 10-20% of cases.

The easiest way to eliminate this side is of course to stop taking the DNP, which is what I recommend. It would be pretty stupid to continue taking dnp when you body is giving you a very clear signal that it wants nothing to do with it.

Anecdotally, some people find that after a few weeks off they can resume the dnp again with no reoccurrence of the rash - it seems to either occur within the first few days of initial use or not at all.

This is a common side effect and can be a severe one.
Fortunately, treatment is relatively easy since taking basic steps like stopping the dnp and supplementing with an anti-histamine tends to eliminate the rash within a few days.

In terms of whether it is enough to justify calling DNP unsafe - this depends on the individual.
On the one hand the rash can be very severe.
On the other it is easily treatable with no long term implications.
But at least CBS has pointed out a risk that has a probability rate high enough to warrant information about treating it.
 
See that's what YOU would rather ignore bc the fact it's not just "my opinion" but rather the opinion of the FDA. Crap it's a registered POISON not some newly announced vitamin seeking approval.

It was BANNED not bc of "my opinion" but based on the same research you feel your more qualified to review than a panel of experts who included physicians, scientists, and researchers.

So your point has no point any longer, fella unless you have a vested interest in DNP sales.

So do you?
 
Final study CBS used:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25367505#

This one is pretty self explanatory.
An allergic reaction to the dnp can cause a skin rash, in some cases a severe skin rash, and this tends to occur in 10-20% of cases.

The easiest way to eliminate this side is of course to stop taking the DNP, which is what I recommend. It would be pretty stupid to continue taking dnp when you body is giving you a very clear signal that it wants nothing to do with it.

Anecdotally, some people find that after a few weeks off they can resume the dnp again with no reoccurrence of the rash - it seems to either occur within the first few days of initial use or not at all.

This is a common side effect and can be a severe one.
Fortunately, treatment is relatively easy since taking basic steps like stopping the dnp and supplementing with an anti-histamine tends to eliminate the rash within a few days.

In terms of whether it is enough to justify calling DNP unsafe - this depends on the individual.
On the one hand the rash can be very severe.
On the other it is easily treatable with no long term implications.
But at least CBS has pointed out a risk that has a probability rate high enough to warrant information about treating it.


No long term complications really? That's what Phen-Fen users believed until 4-5 years after it to was BANNED!
(The final settlement was in the BBBBILLIONS)

God only knows what the complication rate would be if DNP was used with such reckless abandon.

And I'll bet many would have said sure I'll accept those risks (if they were known) until they happened to THEM personally.

Bc thereafter everyone is looking for a scapegoat; from the pharmaceutical co to the doctor and pharmacist.

Just WHO will pay for the cost of DNP complications when they occur? Some pharm company in India, give it a rest!
 
Last edited:
See that's what YOU would rather ignore bc the fact it's not just "my opinion" but rather the opinion of the FDA. Crap it's a registered POISON not some newly announced vitamin seeking approval.

It was BANNED not bc of "my opinion" but based on the same research you feel your more qualified to review than a panel of experts who included physicians, scientists, and researchers.

So your point has no point any longer, fella unless you have a vested interest in DNP sales.

So do you?

The opinion of the FDA is still just that - an opinion.
Forgive me I don't take the opinion of a body that banned ephedrine seriously - especially after YEARS of research showing it to be safe to use.

And also - using the FDA argument on a steroid board, Jim I'm disappointed.
 
No long term complications really? That's what Phen-Fen users believed until 4-5 years after it to was BANNED!

The studies show no long term complications from a dermatological perspective.
This compound has been around since the 30s an the evidence doesn't show any long term complications - of course your free to speculate as much as you wish.
 
Ephedrine is not banned its access is controlled primarily bc it was easily converted into METH.

Hey that's it meth users loose weight, will that be your next point of contention!

And there is no comparison between AAS and DNP when it comes to their safety profile, none!

The dermatological complications of Phen-Fen was not what I was referring to LMAO!

So answer my question do you have a vested interest in DNP sales?

Let's see you joined Meso in Feb 2015 and have been discussing DNP almost exclusively EVER SINCE.

YEA I think that answers my question!
 
Ephedrine is not banned its access is controlled primarily bc it was easily converted into METH.

Hey that's it meth users loose weight, will that be your next point of contention!

And there is no comparison between AAS and DNP when it comes to their safety profile, none!

The dermatological complications of Phen-Fen was not what I was referring to LMAO!

So answer my question do you have a vested interest in DNP sales?

Are you just trolling for the sake of it now?

I said there were no long term complications regarding the skin rash side effect of dnp.
YOU said "no long term complications really?"
I said based on the evidence available, no.
Now your going off on a random rant about phen-fen.

And to answer your question: No, I have no vested interest in dnp sales.


To summarise the evidence that CBS provided in the OP, which HE claimed as an accurate evaluation of the risks of dnp and HE claimed showed that no dose of dnp use is safe:

- A case study on 2 individuals who used either toxic or unknown doses. This provided nothing about whether low doses may be safe.
- A SINGLE ISOLATED CASE study is his proof that all doses of dnp are toxic.
- A ridiculous paper by Colman FULL of misrepresentation of Horner's original research. By the way this isn't my opinion, it is a FACT - he misrepresented Horner several times. Therefore this paper provides NOTHING about an "accurate evaluation" of dnp.
- A paper confirming that skin rashes are a common side of dnp, nothing new here but good for newbies to know.

That ^^^^ is his idea of an accurate evaluation of the risks of dnp = bullshit
That ^^^ was also his idea of showing that no dose of dnp can be taken safely = ONE single case study does NOT, in anyway, prove this point.

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.
 
Back
Top