# BBC News: Warning over illegal 'weight loss' chemical DNP



## FuriousRunt (Apr 10, 2013)

The Food Standards Agency is launching a campaign to warn people of the dangers of an industrial chemical that is being sold illegally as a fat burning pill.

Three people in the UK have died this year after consuming 2,4-dinitrophenol, known as DNP.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24456217


----------



## paul xe (Sep 24, 2011)

Wondered if anyone else saw this on the news this morning.

A bit of scare mongering in my opinion, but the less people who take it that are uneducated about it, the better. (you know, the sort of people who take 1.5g of the stuff in one go and expect to wake up 3 stone lighter)


----------



## NotSoBig (Jun 28, 2013)

Because they abused it!

And no.. i dont use DNP


----------



## Contest (Oct 4, 2011)

Seeing this kind of stuff does get me a little para as I've used DNP three times now but I'm curious to know what kind of doses are these people using that in turn leads to death.


----------



## mal (Dec 31, 2009)

the bbc is arguably the biggest propaganda machine there is,and there constant scaremongering

gets on my t1t.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24454596


----------



## FuriousRunt (Apr 10, 2013)

Yeah they never say anything about the doses these people are taking. Obviously it's a case of thinking more is better.


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

Contest said:


> Seeing this kind of stuff does get me a little para as I've used DNP three times now but I'm curious to know what kind of doses are these people using that in turn leads to death.


Yeah me to

And what they signs and symptoms of dieing are


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

FuriousRunt said:


> Yeah they never say anything about the doses these people are taking. Obviously it's a case of thinking more is better.


it's quite hard to get a direct quote on the deadly dose


----------



## Contest (Oct 4, 2011)

mrssalvatore said:


> Yeah me to
> 
> And what they signs and symptoms of dieing are


That's the other thing; do people just literally drop dead or die in their sleep, or are there signs and symptoms?

The only side I've ever felt of DNP is heat, followed by lethargy about half way through the cycle.

It would make a little more sense if the BBC can actually give out the doses these people are using. Pretty much any drug when over-dosed will kill you.


----------



## kreig (May 12, 2008)

mrssalvatore said:


> Yeah me to
> 
> And what they signs and symptoms of dieing are


Once you've gone too far that's it you're fcuked, there's nothing that can reliably counteract the DNP and if the hospital are unaware of what you've taken they probably stick you on a glucose drip to counteract the dehydration which will just cook you even quicker.

If you're going to use it stick to a low dose and up the dosage very slowly, you'll become stupidly uncomfortable and unable to function due to lethargy before you hit a dose that will kill you.

It's people who just jump in on a gram a day and then think the next day oh I can't really feel it so they up the dose before the first lots kicked in that end up on the news dead.


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

Contest said:


> That's the other thing; do people just literally drop dead or die in their sleep, or are there signs and symptoms?
> 
> The only side I've ever felt of DNP is heat, followed by lethargy about half way through the cycle.
> 
> It would make a little more sense if the BBC can actually give out the doses these people are using. Pretty much any drug when over-dosed will kill you.


This is what I wanted to know....

But if the bbc did that everyone's going to believe that as long as they stay under that dose they won't die...as we all know everyone's tolerance levels are individual as they are...

But would be useful to know


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

blitz2163 said:


> Once you've gone too far that's it you're fcuked, there's nothing that can reliably counteract the DNP and if the hospital are unaware of what you've taken they probably stick you on a glucose drip to counteract the dehydration which will just cook you even quicker.
> 
> If you're going to use it stick to a low dose and up the dosage very slowly, you'll become stupidly uncomfortable and unable to function due to lethargy before you hit a dose that will kill you.
> 
> It's people who just jump in on a gram a day and then think the next day oh I can't really feel it so they up the dose before the first lots kicked in that end up on the news dead.


Cheers for the great reply....

I'm okay I take it slow and steady ....


----------



## Madoxx (Nov 7, 2010)

Didnt i read they had a DNP antidote?

Of all the people who died, were any given the antidote? or as stated above were they just taken to hospital and put on a drip?


----------



## Dr Manhattan (Jan 8, 2012)

Bit of a non-story if you look at what it actually says in this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24123194

FIRST PARAGRAPH:

"The parents of an 18-year-old A-level student who died after taking diet pills were "shocked to the core" by his death, they have said."

LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS:

"The teenager died at home before the ambulance arrived after he started feeling ill, vomiting and feeling hot.

It was thought he had contracted meningitis and an initial post-mortem examination was inconclusive."

That to me says he took DNP but could have died from meningitis as far as they know. Massive scaremongering.


----------



## wikidme (Apr 26, 2013)

Killer internet weight loss drug? There is no bigger story they could publish. Millions of people want to lose weight.

The bottom line is most people want to lose weight ( and look good ) at almost any cost. I dont blame them at all.

I blame the medical establishment for not properly studying and working with DNP. Instead we are told the same things over and over , eat less, exercise more, or get your stomach mutiliated


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

Dr Manhattan said:


> Bit of a non-story if you look at what it actually says in this one:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24123194
> 
> ...


I said that last time when milky started the thread..

Like the other one who was taking it for nearly 4 years

And the other one who was taking a bucket ful of other stuff to

Then they wonder ....


----------



## GolfDelta (Jan 5, 2010)

Is DNP actually even 'illegal'?


----------



## Dr Manhattan (Jan 8, 2012)

mrssalvatore said:


> I said that last time when milky started the thread..
> 
> Like the other one who was taking it for nearly 4 years
> 
> ...


It's ridiculous. It's like someone taking ecstasy ten years ago, who then dies, and the BBC saying 'person dies after taking ecstasy'.

I really do dislike journalists.


----------



## kreig (May 12, 2008)

Madoxx said:


> Didnt i read they had a DNP antidote?
> 
> Of all the people who died, were any given the antidote? or as stated above were they just taken to hospital and put on a drip?


There is a drug that "may" help in some cases but I don't think it's ever been proven to be completely effective and the name escapes me.

That also relies on the medics knowing what you've taken and knowing about what may help which is the difficult part.


----------



## wikidme (Apr 26, 2013)

Dr Manhattan said:


> Bit of a non-story if you look at what it actually says in this one:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24123194
> 
> ...


That to me suggests he may of taken a large dose, didnt know what he was doing, and possible took it on an empty stomach. One Thing I learnt quickly is that you have to take DNP with food, if you take it on an empty stomach you get insane nausea and youll vomit so hard you cant breath.


----------



## Madoxx (Nov 7, 2010)

My phone screen when I ran DNP










Figured if anything went tits up the hospital would know why i was a yellow dehyrdated sweaty mess


----------



## Madoxx (Nov 7, 2010)

wikidme said:


> That to me suggests he may of taken a large dose, didnt know what he was doing, and possible took it on an empty stomac


We see the same on here, people starting off at 250mg, not feeling anything and jumping to 500mg after 2 days....... and these are people who have researched, just not properly


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

Dr Manhattan said:


> It's ridiculous. It's like someone taking ecstasy ten years ago, who then dies, and the BBC saying 'person dies after taking ecstasy'.
> 
> I really do dislike journalists.


Exactly...it's ridiculous!

Taking to much of anything has the same effect though! It's frustrating what information . What wrong information people are being force fed!!


----------



## Mr_Morocco (May 28, 2011)

I cant understand it either, and im sure none of the post mortems of the people who died link it to DNP, yes they were on or had been on it around the time of death but no conclusive proof that it was the DNP that killed them.

Ive ran it twice and was hot enough at 500mg to know not to go over that dose, you'd have to be stupid or mislead to overdose.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

I find it amusing how unbalanced the views of some people are.

Do people really in their heart of hearts think something like DNP should be freely available and self administered


----------



## wikidme (Apr 26, 2013)

Madoxx said:


> We see the same on here, people starting off at 250mg, not feeling anything and jumping to 500mg after 2 days....... and these are people who have researched, just not properly


Aye I have seen this aswell, again I think it is lack of widespread correct information and medical advice that leads to misuse.

Although I can accept that this is blackmarket products, the pills are probably not correctly dosed etc.

I remember when I first got my DNP, I was so thrilled that I had something that I knew would definitely make me lose fat I almost popped half the bottle at once. I think the excitement that "im definitely going to get thin on these pills" can lead to a kind of ""premature ejaculation"" quote on quote!


----------



## wikidme (Apr 26, 2013)

simonthepieman said:


> I find it amusing how unbalanced the views of some people are.
> 
> Do people really in their heart of hearts think something like DNP should be freely available and self administered


A fair point, you cant trust other people well enough to make something like DNP over-the-counter.

It shouldnt be COMPLETELY taboo though. Substantially more cyclists are killed in london each year than people die of DNP in the whole of the UK. Do we ban shops from selling bicycles? Do we ban bicycles on the roads? Bicycles are "over-the-counter" and we seem to trust people enough that cyclists do need any special licences to ride on the roads. Also remember most bus and taxi drviers couldnt give a **** if they run you over and crush your skull.


----------



## Mr_Morocco (May 28, 2011)

simonthepieman said:


> I find it amusing how unbalanced the views of some people are.
> 
> Do people really in their heart of hearts think something like DNP should be freely available and self administered


You could say that with anything though mate, for example Alcohol is freely available and causes a large percentage of deaths in this country, and theres cigarettes which cause cancer, even if you dont smoke and breath it in passively theres a risk of cancer so should that be banned?


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

GolfDelta said:


> Is DNP actually even 'illegal'?


Yep. I posted about this a while back but the thread seems to have been deleted for some reason. Two years and up to 20,000 fine for supplying since it comes under 'unfit for consumption'.


----------



## GolfDelta (Jan 5, 2010)

defdaz said:


> Yep. I posted about this a while back but the thread seems to have been deleted for some reason. Two years and up to 20,000 fine for supplying since it comes under 'unfit for consumption'.


Cheers for that.wasn't sure what the story was with it!


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

I'll repost what I wrote from another thread about dnp:

Why do you think it's gone quiet on here? They're all dead from dnp!

The issue with dnp is that the LD50, the dose that will kill 50% of people is quite close to the dose required for it to have a physiological effect (the 'therapeutic' dose). LD50 for dnp is only about 5 times the therapeutic dose (paracetamol about 10 times, aspirin about 20 times etc.). Don't forget that everyone is different and the LD50 is based on bodyweight too, so the bigger you are the higher the dose needed for LD50. You'll notice that most of the victims are smallish people who are therefore more vulnerabe.

So, if you're a bit of a nonce and haven't looked into dnp closely you won't know that taking 1g a day or so will quickly put you in the grave, especially if you don't take precautionary measures (hydration etc.). With dnp if you take a big dose you'll be in trouble very quickly and be dead (if it goes that way) within 36 hours or so (just like paracetamol really). Most of us on here are sensible and start low and slowly ramp it up until we're at a temperature we can deal with.

Be sensible, no more than 500mg a day (I can't handle more than 250mg and at 100kg that's less than 10% of the LD50 for me) and you'll be fine.

Funny how even though about 100 a year die from Paracetamol each year in the UK it's not treated as anywhere near as danagerous as dnp. Bonkers.

Fact is: DNP is roughly only twice as dangerous as paracetamol.


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

defdaz said:


> I'll repost what I wrote from another thread about dnp:
> 
> Why do you think it's gone quiet on here? They're all dead from dnp!
> 
> ...


Great replay : thumb :


----------



## Mr_Morocco (May 28, 2011)

defdaz said:


> I'll repost what I wrote from another thread about dnp:
> 
> Why do you think it's gone quiet on here? They're all dead from dnp!
> 
> ...


250mg is enough IMO with a nice clean diet, less sides


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

wikidme said:


> A fair point, you cant trust other people well enough to make something like DNP over-the-counter.
> 
> It shouldnt be COMPLETELY taboo though. Substantially more cyclists are killed in london each year than people die of DNP in the whole of the UK. Do we ban shops from selling bicycles? Do we ban bicycles on the roads? Bicycles are "over-the-counter" and we seem to trust people enough that cyclists do need any special licences to ride on the roads. Also remember most bus and taxi drviers couldnt give a **** if they run you over and crush your skull.


Do you really think that is valid comparison? Seriously, you are better than that. The last line was really childish too.

By that same logic

chemical weapons

Heroin

gun

murder

should all be legal too because the account to less deaths than the road.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Mr_Morocco said:


> You could say that with anything though mate, for example Alcohol is freely available and causes a large percentage of deaths in this country, and theres cigarettes which cause cancer, even if you dont smoke and breath it in passively theres a risk of cancer so should that be banned?


Cirgarettes should be banned. They serve no functional positive purpose


----------



## UKLifter88 (Sep 19, 2011)

They banned DMAA now people are taking this!


----------



## funkdocta (May 29, 2013)

Dr Manhattan said:


> Bit of a non-story if you look at what it actually says in this one:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24123194
> 
> ...


That is one of the biggest things that bugged me about a few of the reports lately. There are only a handful of people who have died and for all we know it wasnt even the DNP that killed, it could have been some underlying issue, or them taking other drugs on top of it.


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

simonthepieman said:


> Do you really think that is valid comparison? Seriously, you are better than that. The last line was really childish too.
> 
> By that same logic
> 
> ...


At least paracetamol is a more appropriate comparrison lol. Just half as likely to kill you but totally legal.

I think most things should be legalised and taxed according to the financial impact they'll have on the NHS / society etc.


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

If DNP really was as dangerous as the media make out alot of us on uk-m would be long dead by now..


----------



## funkdocta (May 29, 2013)

simonthepieman said:


> Cirgarettes should be banned. They serve no functional positive purpose


Ah! But the government make massive amounts of money in tax from tobacco and alcohol for that matter. They don't give a **** if it kills you, they just want the tax.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

funkdocta said:


> Ah! But the government make massive amounts of money in tax from tobacco and alcohol for that matter. They don't give a **** if it kills you, they just want the tax.


Ok. that's another paper thin argument, but lets leave it there

what's the relevance here?


----------



## funkdocta (May 29, 2013)

simonthepieman said:


> Ok. that's another paper thin argument, but lets leave it there
> 
> what's the relevance here?


Erm?? You said cigarettes should be banned. I said, but the government make too much money off them to ban them... whats so hard to understand? Yes they should be banned, but like I said, the government make too much money off them to ban them.

Not sure what you are smoking


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

defdaz said:


> At least paracetamol is a more appropriate comparrison lol. Just half as likely to kill you but totally legal.
> 
> I think most things should be legalised and taxed according to the financial impact they'll have on the NHS / society etc.


why paracetamol appropriate comparison. Apparent from both being drugs? Again, try and take a mature look at the comparisons. They aren't comparable.

Do you really think paracetomol is 'half as likely to kill you'? really? Really?


----------



## Hotdog147 (Oct 15, 2011)

If you know what you're doing then you shouldn't come to any harm

Should people use it? Probably not, but you could say that about a lot of things, AAS etc...

I've used it twice now but for me the sides outweigh the positives so I won't bother again

As long as you know what exactly you are taking, its MOA and know the risks then IMO take whatever you want to take, it's your body


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

simonthepieman said:


> why paracetamol appropriate comparison. Apparent from both being drugs? Again, try and take a mature look at the comparisons. They aren't comparable.
> 
> Do you really think paracetomol is 'half as likely to kill you'? really? Really?


Er yep. Did you not read my post up above? Did you not? DID YOU NOT?!


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

funkdocta said:


> That is one of the biggest things that bugged me about a few of the reports lately. There are only a handful of people who have died and for all we know it wasnt even the DNP that killed, it could have been some underlying issue, or them taking other drugs on top of it.


But have you noticed its in every report ! As if to say we know the Dnp is bad and it can kill you but they really died of x y and z and we're just trying to scare the crap out of you!?


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

funkdocta said:


> Erm?? You said cigarettes should be banned. I said, but the government make too much money off them to ban them... whats so hard to understand? Yes they should be banned, but like I said, the government make too much money off them to ban them.
> 
> Not sure what you are smoking


you never said that. I'd re-read what you wrote. (and possible check what you are smoking, your short term memory is diabolical).

There is a massive difference between

" They don't give a **** if it kills you, they just want the tax."

and

"Erm?? You said cigarettes should be banned. I said, but the government make too much money off them to ban them... whats so hard to understand? Yes they should be banned, but like I said, the government make too much money off them to ban them."

your next reply will be something like "OK, I said that, but I meant xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

It's pretty difficult to have sensible debate with someone who says different things to what they mean.


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

simonthepieman said:


> why paracetamol appropriate comparison. Apparent from both being drugs? Again, try and take a mature look at the comparisons. They aren't comparable.
> 
> Do you really think paracetomol is 'half as likely to kill you'? really? Really?


Ok, right, paracetamol has an LD50 only twice that of dnp, hence why they're a very appropriate comparison. Paracetamol is actually a pretty damn nasty drug, can cause long term damage through chronic ingestion besides the comparitively low LD50.

I'm being mature and they're very comparable. You need to read up on your facts Mr Pieman before getting your hair off in future. :thumb:


----------



## stone14 (Mar 24, 2005)

paul xe said:


> A bit of scare mongering in my opinion,


its only the gullible sheep that will suck that in, they shouldn't be using it anyway, but we building are own knowledge no better then that.


----------



## funkdocta (May 29, 2013)

mrssalvatore said:


> But have you noticed its in every report ! As if to say we know the Dnp is bad and it can kill you but they really died of x y and z and we're just trying to scare the crap out of you!?


Indeed! The report would be a bit rubbish if they said didn't scaremonger though.  Its just the hot topic of the moment and will pass. They did the same scaremongering over Ecstasy and pot.


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

simonthepieman said:


> you never said that. I'd re-read what you wrote. (and possible check what you are smoking, your short term memory is diabolical).
> 
> There is a massive difference between
> 
> ...


Simons day so far: :sleeping: :yawn: :confused1: :angry: :cursing: 

:laugh:


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

defdaz said:


> Er yep. Did you not read my post up above? Did you not? DID YOU NOT?!


I read it, but without any supporting data I can't take it as any kind of substance (no pun intended).

And again, the LD50 thing has no context here as there are entirely different agents. Which aren't comparable.


----------



## stone14 (Mar 24, 2005)

just look at what they did to porn on that porn addiction programme a few days ago, making out like porn is the devil, total joke.


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

simonthepieman said:


> I read it, but without any supporting data I can't take it as any kind of substance (no pun intended).
> 
> And again, the LD50 thing has no context here as there are entirely different agents. Which aren't comparable.


What? Mate, LD50 applies to anything consumed. Even water. D'oh. :lol:


----------



## funkdocta (May 29, 2013)

simonthepieman said:


> you never said that. I'd re-read what you wrote. (and possible check what you are smoking, your short term memory is diabolical).
> 
> There is a massive difference between
> 
> ...


I suggest you read the whole of the post not just the last sentence and take it out of context. I wrote: "Ah! But the government make massive amounts of money in tax from tobacco and alcohol for that matter. They don't give a **** if it kills you, they just want the tax."

Your response was: "Ok. that's another paper thin argument, but lets leave it there. what's the relevance here?"

Paper thin argument? huh? whats the relevance?? what? The relevance is I was responding (and agreeing) that they should be banned, but pointed out they make too much money to ban them. What is so hard to understand about that?? Maybe the sarcasm was a little lost on you??


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

defdaz said:


> Simons day so far: :sleeping: :yawn: :confused1: :angry: :cursing:
> 
> :laugh:


Good response, addressed my concerns completely.

I have a headache now. where are my paracetamol?


----------



## TheSic (Oct 3, 2013)

And not a single **** should be given today.


----------



## funkdocta (May 29, 2013)

defdaz said:


> What? Mate, LD50 applies to anything consumed. Even water. D'oh. :lol:


I think hes still half asleep mate, he didnt read my post properly either and seems to have taken it as some sort of attack.


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

funkdocta said:


> Indeed! The report would be a bit rubbish if they said didn't scaremonger though.  Its just the hot topic of the moment and will pass. They did the same scaremongering over Ecstasy and pot.


All these years after it for pushed under the carpet!

I know it's maybe not at the top of the priority with cancer treatments etc ... But if a little more research was done into the drug, by a professional then maybe we can bring it into the future at a later date!

I think you're right though they're just trying to scare people into leaving it alone so they don't have to keep covering stories


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

Surely the difference is paracetamol actually has medicinal purposes and its hard to compare stats on an off the shelf drug that is used far more commonly with something that's been used to make explosives.


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

Ps make DNP available off the shelf and I imagine your little statistic of deaths vs paracetamol may change?


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

Heath said:


> Surely the difference is paracetamol actually has medicinal purposes and its hard to compare stats on an off the shelf drug that is used far more commonly with something that's been used to make explosives.


Things get made illegal to consume based upon the supposed level of harm they cause. The problem is that due to politics, propaganda and money many things that are fairly harmless are banned yet other things that are blatently very harmful aren't. It's these inconsistencies that get everybodys knickers in a twist.

Alcohol, cigarrettes and paracetamol are killing tens of thousands of people every year yet are legal.

Steroids and dnp kill a handful, certainly less than ten a year but are illegal.

It annoys me that people can cost us billions every year through abuse of drink and **** and we have to cough up the money for that yet when I want to take something that has minimal effect on me in comparisson I am undertaking a criminal activity!

/viva la revolucion


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

Heath said:


> Ps make DNP available off the shelf and I imagine your little statistic of deaths vs paracetamol may change?


Ssssh. :tongue:


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

defdaz said:


> I'll repost what I wrote from another thread about dnp:
> 
> Why do you think it's gone quiet on here? They're all dead from dnp!
> 
> ...


the MSDS for DNP (2,4-Dinitrophenol) states that the LD50 is 30mg/Kg (oral, rats). surely that is much less than half of paracetamol?

I DNP was consumed at the rate that paracetamol was, do you really believe that there would only be 200 deaths a year from it?


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

a.notherguy said:


> the MSDS for DNP (2,4-Dinitrophenol) states that the LD50 is 30mg/Kg (oral, rats). surely that is much less than half of paracetamol?
> 
> I DNP was consumed at the rate that paracetamol was, do you really believe that there would only be 200 deaths a year from it?


It's amazing how statistics can be spun :lol:


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

a.notherguy said:


> the MSDS for DNP (2,4-Dinitrophenol) states that the LD50 is 30mg/Kg (oral, rats). surely that is much less than half of paracetamol?
> 
> I DNP was consumed at the rate that paracetamol was, do you really believe that there would only be 200 deaths a year from it?


LD50 of dnp for humans (and it's still being debated) is 32mg/kg I think. Paracetamol can cause liver failure with just 6g of it (daily max dose is 4g).

Only 200 or 2000 - point is that most people know that paracetamol is dangerous yet still take it. Most people know that aspirin can cause stomach ulcers etc. but still take it. It's precisely because of the way dnp is being demonised that information is lacking on it and if it was being handled differently maybe those people who died from it may have been more informed and not overdosed. Who knows.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

defdaz said:


> LD50 of dnp for humans (and it's still being debated) is 32mg/kg I think. Paracetamol can cause liver failure with just 6g of it (daily max dose is 4g).
> 
> Only 200 or 2000 - point is that most people know that paracetamol is dangerous yet still take it. Most people know that aspirin can cause stomach ulcers etc. but still take it. It's precisely because of the way dnp is being demonised that information is lacking on it and if it was being handled differently maybe those people who died from it may have been more informed and not overdosed. Who knows.


im not trying to be a dik here but i think your picking your stats to suit your argument rather that looking at it from a completely unbiassed point of view.

yes, doses of 6g a day *can* cause liver failure but this is not something that you can compare to the LD50 value of another substance. it would be extremely rare and very unlikely to kill 50% of subjects tested.

This statistc should not be used to state that DNP is only twice as harmful as paracetamol as this is a dangerous and reckless assumption to make, and it assumptions like this that lead to the people that you described as nonces (think that means something different where i live lol) taking too much and dying.


----------



## marknorthumbria (Oct 1, 2009)

lets face it, if DNP was made legal

there would no longer be obesity

as all the fat people would be dead


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

marknorthumbria said:


> lets face it, if DNP was made legal
> 
> there would no longer be obesity
> 
> as all the fat people would be dead


All the fat stupid people anyway. Result!


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

a.notherguy said:


> im not trying to be a dik here but i think your picking your stats to suit your argument rather that looking at it from a completely unbiassed point of view.
> 
> yes, doses of 6g a day *can* cause liver failure but this is not something that you can compare to the LD50 value of another substance. it would be extremely rare and very unlikely to kill 50% of subjects tested.
> 
> This statistc should not be used to state that DNP is only twice as harmful as paracetamol as this is a dangerous and reckless assumption to make, and it assumptions like this that lead to the people that you described as nonces (think that means something different where i live lol) taking too much and dying.


It's all good mate 

LD50 for dnp is roughly x5 therapeutic dose, for paracetamol it's VERY roughly 11 times since the range over which people can die from it varies so much due to the different ways it affects our bodies. For me the difference between x5 and x11 isn't enough for one to be worth getting you banged up for two years and the other can be sold by the million. That's the only point I'm trying to make.


----------



## MrLulz (Mar 20, 2012)

Madoxx said:


> Didnt i read they had a DNP antidote?
> 
> Of all the people who died, were any given the antidote? or as stated above were they just taken to hospital and put on a drip?


Dantrolene.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

I'm no expert on dinitrophenol's at all, but have spent hours going over the toxicology reports and the few case studies that are available from back in the day when it was a legal supp in the states before it was banned.

My interpretation of the info out there is that you do need caution with this. Several of the common symptoms, especially cataracts and macular damage, seem to be related to sub optimal vitamin c status... there may also be a benefit from high dosing vit c when on dnp to protect against or reduce risk for those sides.

In respect of the fatalities though I think it's important to point out that it is NOT just abusers or high dosers that have died - there are documented cases of people without heart conditions dying with really quite low doses and under medical supervision... there also appears to be a higher incidence of more serious sides in second time users, possibly either because of cardiac or cellular damage done that was undetected first time, or simply because of using cautiously first time and going OTT second time - whatever though, the reasoning behind the ban was not just the fatalities themselves, but an apparent large degree of interindividual variance in how risky dnp seems to be, and that was the main reason that tipped it in favor of the ban.

IMO this stuff can be used relatively safely, but it is a very powerful substance that has a profound dose dependent effect upon mitochondrial function and energy release - it also severely affects the beta cells of the pancreas and insulin production and function in all case of use. Lets not forget that what makes this work is the fact that it is a toxin that inhibits processes that are key to cellular function and the processing of energy, and the body does go into high stress with it and therfore puts the body in a higher state of risk for many things.

For that reason, and the degree of interindividual variability in degree of risk, it's one to keep low dose and for short runs only. There are many people on forums who log doing the stuff and use it as an excuse to eat sh1t and drink thinking they won't get fat, and people even talk about taking dnp and then going out sniffing charlie and taking stims... just because some people have done this and are seemingly unscathed, that doesn't mean damage wasn't done or that you can ignore all the cautionary stuff said about it.

Also just because it has worked well for you without any obviously nasty sides that doesn't mean you will always respond the same way with future doses or with larger doses. If you must use this then use it as it was originally intended - as a low dose short term aid to dietary and lifestyle changes to promote fat loss. Too many people IMO use it compensate for not doing all the main stuff they should be, or to get results faster because they are impatient. No names in particular, but it does often seem like a drug of choice for the dietary lazy or stupidly gung ho PED brigade.


----------



## marknorthumbria (Oct 1, 2009)

dtlv said:


> I'm no expert on dinitrophenol's at all, but have spent hours going over the toxicology reports and the few case studies that are available from back in the day when it was a legal supp in the states before it was banned.
> 
> My interpretation of the info out there is that you do need caution with this. Several of the common symptoms, especially cataracts and macular damage, seem to be related to sub optimal vitamin c status... there may also be a benefit from high dosing vit c when on dnp to protect against or reduce risk for those sides.
> 
> ...


Dtlv for Internet president!


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

dtlv said:


> I'm no expert on dinitrophenol's at all, but have spent hours going over the toxicology reports and the few case studies that are available from back in the day when it was a legal supp in the states before it was banned.
> 
> My interpretation of the info out there is that you do need caution with this. Several of the common symptoms, especially cataracts and macular damage, seem to be related to sub optimal vitamin c status... there may also be a benefit from high dosing vit c when on dnp to protect against or reduce risk for those sides.
> 
> ...


You turn me on when you talk science


----------



## PLauGE (Oct 17, 2010)

What sort of dose would people consider a safe dose and what cycle length, must have supps to go alongside? Not so long back when aus was around and giving advice that t3 was needed alongside that seemed to be way people went but now from the few threads I have used nobody bothers with the t3, to much conflicting info around


----------



## havering (May 14, 2013)

PLauGE said:


> What sort of dose would people consider a safe dose and what cycle length, must have supps to go alongside? Not so long back when aus was around and giving advice that t3 was needed alongside that seemed to be way people went but now from the few threads I have used nobody bothers with the t3, to much conflicting info around


Most people take vitamins, mainly c and e, electrolytes as well I'd go with 125 for at least a week just to see how you go and then judge from there.


----------



## wikidme (Apr 26, 2013)

PLauGE said:


> What sort of dose would people consider a safe dose and what cycle length, must have supps to go alongside? Not so long back when aus was around and giving advice that t3 was needed alongside that seemed to be way people went but now from the few threads I have used nobody bothers with the t3, to much conflicting info around


for me personally, 1 month at 250mg per day 5 days on, 2 days off is absolutely plenty. Provided you keep diet in check this should easily produce 10-15lbs of solid fat loss. But this is for me, as dtlv said when you read the literature there is indeed a high degree of variability in peoples responses to DNP. This should be kept in mind, experiment slowly, with patients and always with extreme caution when using DNP.

Ive tried loads of different "drugs" in my lifetime and most of them are bull****, however DNP without a doubt ranks up there at #1 as the most "serious business" drug I ever took. It deserves upmost respect.

I also noticed that DNP works exceptionally well with a beta receptor agonists like ephedrine, when I combine DNP with chesteze the results were substantially better. Keeping my carbs at the lower end also helped manage temperature. Lastly keep your intake of vit C and vit E at good levels.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

PLauGE said:


> What sort of dose would people consider a safe dose and what cycle length, must have supps to go alongside? Not so long back when aus was around and giving advice that t3 was needed alongside that seemed to be way people went but now from the few threads I have used nobody bothers with the t3, to much conflicting info around


On dosage my view is that 200-250mg should be tops... at 100mg the basic estimated effect is a twenty percent elevation in BMR, at 250mg it's around 35% according to a table going around internet land that supposedly is based on clinically observed dnp use (haven't looked to verify, or to see how they factor dosage size vs bodyweight into that and if it's an average or not). Although greater weight loss is achievable with a higher intake (500mg equals 60% increase in BMR), 250mg seems the turning point dosage where serious complications are quite rare below this, but they become much more common above this. IIR the lowest dose known for sure to cause a fatality in an otherwise healthy woman was 110mg or 140mg for ten days, but that is the lowest recorded that I'm aware of.

For a cycle I would say (other than don't do it at all), keep to a fortnight with some daily cycling possibly too.

For t3 use alongside, there is some evidence that it may be a synergistic combo because of how t3 counteracts some of the diabetic effects of dnp... another adjunct drug to research is a dnp and slin, or dnp/slin/t3 combo for the same reason... and those adjunct drugs, even if they are with their own risks themselves, may well actually reduce some of the potential harm from dnp.

Basically dnp causes insulin production to crash dramatically because of the way insulin stimulation works... in a really butchered and simplified version of what goes on, the beta cells that secrete insulin know when to push that insulin out because elevations in blood sugar cause glucose to be absorbed into the beta cells at a greater rate (the beta cells have lots of surface GLUT2 transporters just waiting for glucose)... is like turning up a dimmer switch as glucose in the blood increases. The glucose goes into the cell and is immediately broken down by mitochondria to release ATP and energy, and this energy is immediately directed to the cells to manufacture release insulin, is where the energy for that process comes from.

What dnp does however is to make conversion of glucose into ATP and energy far less efficient and for much of the energy to be lost as heat rather than to power insulin synthesis and release... so to achieve a normal insulin response when on dnp is not possible. This is actually one way that dnp aids fat loss by creating a low insulin state (lower insulinic blocking of lipolysis) as well as the increased inefficiency in energy use - it also suggests that dnp should work better on a higher carb diet for kcals lost to heat, but also that sides such as hyperglycemia are more likely on a higher carb diet.

Hyperglycemia with dnp is a problem, as is the fact that low insulin isn't gonna help lean mass retention. Glycation of proteins as glucose can't clear the blood very well and can also occur... effectively a high enough dose of dnp temporarily makes a person a functioning type 1 diabetic, and can potentially do long lastign damage to kidney, liver and pancreatic tissues that wouldn't likely be immediately detectable. The irony is that if it does damage tissues in those organs (not saying ot definitely will but definitely increase chance it might compared to not taking it) then the long term effect of a short term load of fat loss via dnp would be a reduced ability to lose fat when off it due to damaged insulin signalling and related issues mentioned.

This is how kidney damage on dnp appears to work in particular (the kidney being the most commonly observed organ to be damaged with dnp), by messing with energy and glucose levels within renal tissues that then mess with cellular RNA and most people don't realise that dnp is a 'drug of choice' by scientists to induce type 1 diabetes in laboratory rats (one example of many here - http://www.medicine.gu.se/digitalAssets/1391/1391522_erik-th--rn.pdf)... they use it because it achieves such damage consistently and efficiently at high doses.

T3 may therefore be good to add because it can reduce hyperglycemia because t3 increases both insulin signalling and sensitivity, effectively counteracting some of the negatives from dnp, as might slin itself if not on a low carb diet.

Note I am not suggesting anyone actually do any of this - am not a dnp fan personally, and also think many people take too many risks with slin and t3 also. Just putting it out there for info purposes to encourage people considering dnp to research the relevant areas around it... once people have made their minds up to take something they seem to take it whatever advice given, but at least be informed about it to minimise risk and maximise desired effect.


----------



## PLauGE (Oct 17, 2010)

Great post, thanks dtlv  , and thanks for the other replies


----------



## iamrich (Sep 1, 2012)

Safe dose and an industrial chemical like DNP shouldn't really go in the same sentence tbh.


----------

