Jubrail (Hive Addict)
07-07-03 17:47
No 445246
      Possible PPA source?  Bookmark   

I couldn't find anything by UTSFEing.  The FDA recently warned manufacturers against selling many OTCs that contain PPA.

From their site:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking steps to remove phenylpropanolamine (PPA) from all drug products and has requested that all drug companies discontinue marketing products containing PPA. In addition, FDA has issued a public health advisory concerning phenylpropanolamine. This drug is an ingredient that was used in many over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription cough and cold medications as a decongestant and in OTC weight loss products.

In response to the request made by FDA in November 2000, many companies have voluntarily reformulated and are continuing to reformulate their products to exclude PPA while FDA proceeds with the regulatory process necessary to remove PPA from the market.

Phenylpropanolamine is an ingredient used in prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) drug products as a nasal decongestant to relieve stuffy nose or sinus congestion and in OTC weight control drug products to control appetite.

Partial list of products:

1350966 TAVIST-D
8147803 PERMATHENE-16

Has anyone looked into pseduo style acquisition of PPA?

I've actually never looked into PPA much, just thought this might be useful for someone out there.  If I'm simply ignorant, do not tell me to UTFSE, already did.  Just flame me instead.

Rainbows & Butterflies Forever :)
(Hive Bee)
07-07-03 18:15
No 445250
      otc medications  Bookmark   

I wanted buy some PPA tablets today, but the pharmacist told me that every product containing PPA was taken off the shelves a couple of months ago frown. There new formulations now contain pseudoephedrine or phenylephrine.
I don't live in the USA but in Europe.

(Hive Bee)
07-07-03 20:29
No 445274
      PPA in the USA  Bookmark   

I am quite sure that 100% of the list you posted no longer contains PPA, at least in the US.  I did no research on any of it but I am going on memory, if I am wrong someone please interject.  If I recall the US was very quick to remove this substance from everything sold OTC in the US. 

     However while looking through a spill control/first aid cabinet last week I found some sinus releif that contained PPA.  HMMMM... just a hunch but if I wanted PPA I would contact the people that supply companies with first aid supplies, they are usually private entities, and there sole purpose is to supply companies with first aid supplies, fire extinguisher services, and spill controll supplies.  As far as I know they do not operate under very strict guidelines or abide by too many quality Control procedures, although I could be wrong.  If they do not abide to stringent rules then they may have mass quantities of PPA containing pills, stockpiled, or even better, just about to expire.

     Not to get off topic but this brings me to the whole expiration topic.  Many US companies that operate under cGMP's and GLP's have to discard anything that expires, I never really thought of it as an opportunity to acquire free chemicals, however a few months ago I was bringing some used reagents, to the hazardous waste storage facility in my building, I decided to look in all of the cabinets to see what people were discarding, WOW!! Cabinets chock full of unopened ACS grade chems!!! All expired.  None the less never opened.... smile  I made arrangements with the warehouse and from now on when chemicals expire, I am notified, If I choose I can take these chems off of there hands, for FREE...  Note: I have decided to only take easily acquireable, non-suspicous chems via this route, ie. GAA, absolute etoh 200 proof, IPA, xylene, acetone, etc.  I plan to sell these free chems to a friend who will sell them via an online storefront.  I am in the process of figuring out how much it costs a company to dispose of such chemicals, that expire, my first thoughts are, it costs more to dispose of these chems than they are actually worth.  If you find the right people to work with you may be able to help them by saving them lots of money in Hazardous waste removal, while making a little bit of money yourself.

  Let it be known that many companies would rather pay the extra, to have it hauled off than, to give chems to a stranger, but it is all in the presentation.  If you can present to them how much money they can save, they will become the proverbial pavlovian dog.  They are conditioned to do what it takes to save money they are ruled by greed, any mention of a department saving money, usually means a fat bonus check for the manager.   cool 
     Well just another idea on possibilities of sourcing chemicals, for Free...  Of course this subject is in it's start up phase and will be researched fully, with the help of legal counsel, before any of this moves forward.   smile

     Unipolar Mania, It's good for life...laugh
(Hive Addict)
07-07-03 21:11
No 445289
      ppa  Bookmark   

Most UK formulations have removed ppa too and replaced with sud. Those that have retained it are expensive brand names (UK medicines are pretty damned expensive as it is) and have low content with at max 25 mg. They are also very heavily gakked.

From what I can gather though, Europe appears to have acted on FDA recomendations or at least concurrent with them despite the fact that ppa products in Europe were different from those in the US anyway. As this illustrates:

Update on phenylpropanolamine (November 08, 2000)

The Committee on Safety of Medicines met on November 8 to review the safety of phenylpropanolamine. The meeting followed the Food and Drug Administration's announcement this week that it is taking steps to remove phenylpropanolamine from all drug products. The CSM has yet to announce its recommendations.

However, the debate over the safety of phenylpropanolamine may be irrelevant because the compound used in the United States is different to that used in Europe. As a result, US trial data on phenylpropanolamine may not apply to United Kingdom products.

Professor Tony Moffat (chief scientist, Royal Pharmaceutical Society) pointed out the difference to The Journal. In Europe, a different isomer of phenylpropanolamine known as norpseudoephedrine is used, while in the US it is ±norephedrine. In other words, they were two different drugs, he said. The difference is described in Martindale.

The FDA's decision to remove phenylpropanolamine from drug products followed a meeting in October at which researchers from Yale University, US, presented study results showing that phenylpropanolamine increased risk of haemorrhagic stroke (PJ, October 28, p642). The study gave a much higher odds ratio for association between haemorrhagic stroke and use of phenylpropanolamine in appetite suppressants than in cold preparations (15.92 in appetite suppressants and 1.23 in cold and cough remedies).

extract from http://www.pharmj.com/news/NewsContents2000.html
(Hive Bee)
07-08-03 12:35
No 445540
      hehe :-)
(Rated as: excellent)

The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 265 No 7125 p817
December 02, 2000 Letters

Putting the record straight

From Professor A. C. Moffat, FRPharmS, and others

SIR,—In The Pharmaceutical Journal of November 11 the article on phenylpropanolamine1 correctly reported the information given to you by one of us (Professor Moffat) and contained in Martindale.2 Since then, we have been checking the original sources of that information and have found a number of inaccuracies. We now wish to put the record straight.

The important fact to note is that the drug named phenylpropanolamine is the same in the United States as it is in Europe. The European Pharmacopoeia3 (and, therefore, the British Pharmacopoeia4) defines it as (1RS,2SR)-2-amino-1-phenyl- propanol, whereas the United States Pharmacopeia5 defines it as benzenemethanol, alpha-(1-aminoethyl)-(R*,S*)-(±). The common name of this material is (±)-norephedrine, ie, it is a racemic mixture of the two enantiomers of norephedrine. It is therefore different from (±)-norpseudoephedrine. (The pairs of enantiomers of norephedrine and norpseudoephedrine are diastereoisomers.) Thus, both European and United States preparations that contain phenylpropanolamine contain the same drug, namely, (±)-norephedrine.
The European Pharmacopoeia gives a two-dimensional representation of the formula for phenylpropanolamine whereas the British Pharmacopoeia gives a three-dimensional representation of the formula. However, the formula in the British Pharmacopoeia depicts the wrong isomer (norpseudoephedrine instead of norephedrine). Now that this has been recognised, the correct graphic formula (as published in British Approved Names 1999) will be included in the British Pharmacopoeia 2001.

Concerning the statement in Martindale that "d-norpseudo-ephedrine is the most potent stimulant of the CNS and is contained in European phenylpropanolamine preparations”, we no longer believe this to be true. The statement comes directly from the 1990 paper by Lake6 who obtained that information from the chapter by Morgan7 published in 1985. While there may have been some truth in it in 1985, it is certainly not true today. The statement will be amended in the next printed and CD-ROM versions of Martindale.

We apologise for any confusion that may have arisen as a result of quoting information from these published sources, but that information is now being corrected.

The Committee on Safety of Medicines has recently advised that the evidence of a link between UK products containing phenylpropanolamine and haemorrhagic stroke is weak and mainly associated with indications that are not licensed in the UK.8 This followed articles in the media referring to a study carried out in the United States. There therefore does not appear to be any extra known risk in taking such preparations within the label instructions although the usual precautions should continue to be taken.

Tony Moffat Chief Scientist, Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Sean Sweetman Editor, Martindale
Marie Rabouhans Editor-in-Chief, British Pharmacopoeia

1. Is phenylpropanolamine in UK products really unsafe? Pharm J 2000;265:709.

2. Parfitt K (editor). Martindale — The Complete Drug Reference. 32nd edition. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 1999. pp1067-8.

3. Council of Europe. European Pharmacopoeia, 3rd edition. Strasbourg: Council of Europe; 1997. pp1325-6.

4. British Pharmacopoeia Commission. British Pharmacopoeia 2000, Vol I. London: Stationery Office; 2000. pp1215-6.

5. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. The United States Pharmacopeia 24. Rockville: United States Pharmacopeial Convention; 2000. p1319.

6. Lake CR, et al. Adverse drug effects attributed to phenylpropanolamine: a review of 142 case reports. Am J Med 1990;89:195-208.

7. Morgan JP. Norephedrine and norpseudoephedrine: pharmacologically and clinically distinct isomers of phenylpropanolamine. In: Morgan JP, Kagan DV, Brody JS (editors). Phenylpropanolamine. Risks, benefits and controversies. New York: Praeger; 1985. pp180-94.
8. Committee on Safety of Medicines. Drug Safety Information EL(00)A/32. London: Medicines Control Agency; 2000. pp1-4.

(Hive Addict)
07-08-03 14:50
No 445581
      whoops..  Bookmark   

...spotted that after postingtongue

The Committee on Safety of Medicines has recently advised that the evidence of a link between UK products containing phenylpropanolamine and haemorrhagic stroke is weak and mainly associated with indications that are not licensed in the UK.8
....so they didn't ban the substance,  strangely however these formulations have for the most part gone.
(Hive Addict)
07-09-03 00:16
No 445684
      Not much info  Bookmark   

On TFSE or Rhod's site about pulling them anyway.  Combined with the fact that they are disappearing from shelves, seems like synthing is the way to go.

Rainbows & Butterflies Forever :)
(Hive Bee)
07-09-03 04:11
No 445742
      according to US "experts" (cough)  Bookmark   


An ingredient found in common cold remedies could increase the risk of strokes in young people, according to US experts.

Now an advisory panel has recommended that the main regulatory body, the Food and Drug Administration, should ban the sale of products containing phenylpropanolamine (PPA).

Although the increased risk of strokes in people aged between 18 and 49 is small, the FDA is likely to heed the advice of the panel.

In the UK, products containing the decongestant include well known brand Benylin Day & Night.

Product review

Manufacturers, Pfizer, have confirmed that they are reviewing their product lines in the UK in the light of the US recommendation.

"This is very, very new but we are already looking hard at products containing PPA," a spokesman said.

The UK's Department of Health has said that any decision the FDA makes will be reviewed by doctors in Britain.

"If there is any new evidence the Committee on Safety of Medicines will look at this," a spokesman told BBC News Online.

Department of Health
PPA is found in diet drugs sold in chemists, as well as cold remedies, because of its properties as an appetite suppressant as well as a decongestant.

The US advisory panel considered the results of a study from Yale School of Medicine.

It estimated that banning products containing PPA could prevent between 200 and 500 strokes a year among younger people.

According to the Stroke Association 10% of the 100,000 new cases of stroke every year in the UK occur in people under 55.

(Well, I guess the stroke story is the reason for banning PPA in most other European countries too. To my best knowledge most EU countries banned the use of PPA or (pseudo-)ephedrine in OTC appetite supressants years ago.)

Although the increased risk of strokes in people aged between 18 and 49 is small, the FDA is likely to heed the advice of the panel.

Hehe, next to the article there are links stating that passive smoking, high iron levels, illegal drugs use (why of course!wink) and, LOL!laugh trumpet players have higher risks of stroke too!

Ban cigarettes, iron supplements, and trumpets, now! I estimate that this could prevent several hunderds of strokes per year. Better ban coffee too, and sex above 50, and while we're at it, better ban Georgie W. too, I'm sure that banning him alone could prevent us thousands of strokes per year! wink

A Dream Within A Dream (http://www.poedecoder.com/Qrisse/works/dreamw.html)
(Hive Addict)
07-09-03 07:58
No 445770
      Expertic review PPA is good drug,not nearly as  Bookmark   

Doesn't this ban idea doesn't have anything to do with PPA being a direct precursour for amphetamine and 4-MAR?

For those about to synth,we salute you
(Hive Bee)
07-09-03 14:40
No 445844
      Could be a factor,  Bookmark   

maybe the DEA was really fearing that next to the PE/match books/Iodine tincture meth cooks, there would come a new generation of PPA/urea/soda 4-MAR cooks. smile

But then I wonder why they use pseudoephedrine now instead of PPA in a lot of 'new formulations', where I live.

A Dream Within A Dream (http://www.poedecoder.com/Qrisse/works/dreamw.html)
(Hive Bee)
07-10-03 12:59
No 446149
      I really don't think that the ban of PPA had...  Bookmark   

I really don't think that the ban of PPA had much to do with it's use as precursor. I doubt that many goverments are aware of it's 4-methylaminorex precursor potential, and definately not the non toxic cyanogen route.

PPA was/is really a shitty weight loss drug. Didn't do much for the appetite(ie. hardly nothing IMHO) but put the bloodpressure through the roof without the user being aware of it. It's not like with meth where you can feel your bloodpressure getting quite high; with PPA it was very subtle and i think that's what killed all those folks during the legal period.


Size doesn't matter, it's the sound you make when hitting the ground after smoking it, that matters!
(Active Asperger Archivist)
07-10-03 23:36
No 446268
      amphetamine  Bookmark   

what about simple reduction?  did no one ever make plain jane?

Act quickly or not at all.
07-13-03 21:31
No 446872
      yep it took about 3months of almost daily...  Bookmark   

yep it took about 3months of almost daily searching to find a good source and I WOULD KILL MY MOTHER TO KEEP IT FROM GETTING OUT SO DONT ASK......sorry

gonnna be dreaming soon as the rest of my dog shit gets here

PS i aint no chemist and I aint gonna go the EorPH way......yet
07-16-03 13:11
No 447761
      you know how much money the government has...  Bookmark   

you know how much money the government has tied up in all their anti-drug bullshit?  i think they WANT people making meth, just so they can go out and bust 'em.
(Hive Bee)
07-16-03 19:59
No 447812
      it´s against ephedrines as whole  Bookmark   

The DEA and other authorities are much more long term orientated as most here would ever believe - the regulation of production of ephedrines worldwide is a example for this. I believe the goal is to make all ephedrine based medication prescription only. PPA was first to go for it was the most easy one. The first brick to break out of a wall is the hardest and as such a "first brick" I would see PPA, ephedrine was next. Rest follows sooner or later.

Another point will be to take away ALL real working OTC medication - for profits and control.

The final aim of the whole WOD operation is by no way "no drugs" but the direct or indirect control of illicit drug production/trade by the US. The day meth would be produced by some superlabs only controlled by some mafia in arrangement with the US the whole hysteria would end all of sudden. Not meth is the problem but that its manufacturing and profits are dezentralised and uncontrolled by now in big parts.  This to end is the WOD and this fascist proliferation act.
Afghanistan was a war for a oil pipeline but also a war to punish the local license holders on heroin the Taliban and warlords for not obeying.

This is no conspiracy nonsense but reality. There are long time concepts from the "think tanks" and they are in progress. Not always without contradictions and not overall consistent.

Facing this I plead for the instant flooding of these "think tanks" either with Sarine or permanent tekkno parties. The second would be cruel, I know.....

Honi soit qui mal y pense