(Updated 7/17/20). Have you heard of the anti-aging supplement Protandim? Maybe you saw a YouTube video of when Protandim was featured on ABC's PrimeTime? Protandim called an “Nrf2 activator” has been said to be the “only supplement clinically proven to reduce oxidative stress in humans by an average of 40 percent in 30 days.” That’s fancy talk for Protandim is a type of antioxidant supplement. Unlike other products, Protandim is said to work by helping the body increase its own natural antioxidant enzymes. Sounds good, but does Protandim work, or is it a scam? These are some of the questions I will address in this review. The good news is there are clinical studies on Protandim. I will use that research in this review and help you understand it. By the end of this review, you'll have a better idea if Protandim is right for you.
Other Anti-Aging Supplement Reviews
What Is Protandim?
Protandim might sound like a drug but it's really a dietary supplement. It's said to combat free radical damage (oxidative stress) by stimulating the production of the body's own natural antioxidant enzymes such as catalase, superoxide dismutase (SOD), and glutathione.
The idea goes like this: instead of taking individual antioxidant supplements (like vitamins C, E, etc.) in the hopes they will battle free radicals and combat aging and disease, Protandim is supposed to augment or ramp up your own naturally occurring free radical defenses.
It's a novel concept to be sure.
The supplement website (LifeVantage.com) says the supplement is “clinically proven to reduce oxidative stress to levels of that of a 20-year-old.” Oxidative stress refers to the stress (cellular damage) caused by free radicals.
What Does The Name Mean?
My guess is the name was chosen because the ingredients are supposed to “pro-actively” work in “tandim” to help defend us against aging and disease.
Who Makes Protandim?
Protandim is a product of a company called LifeVantage Corporation. LifeVantage is actually a publicly traded stock on the NASDAQ. Its stock symbol is LFVN.
The company is located at 9785 S. Monroe Street, Suite 300 Sandy, UT 84070. If you google this address you will see a building with “LifeVantage” at the top. That is good. It tells us the company has a physical location.
Contact LifeVantage
Call the company at 866-460-7241.
The Better Business Bureau gave LifeVantage an A- rating when this review was updated. See the BBB file for updates and more information.
Protandim Ingredients
According to the product's website, there are 5 ingredients in each caplet of Protandim which add up to 625 mg:
| Amount Per Serving (1 caplet) | Percent Daily Value |
|---|---|
| Calcium (as dicalcum phosphate & calcium carbonate) 77 mg | 8% DV |
| Proprietary Blend Consisting of the following | 675 mg |
| Milk thistle extract (Silybum marianum) seed. | |
| Bacopa extract (Bacopa monnieri) whole herb | |
| Ashwagandha extract (Withania somnifera) root | |
| Green tea extract (Camellia sinensis) leaf | |
| Turmeric extract (Curcuma longa) rhizome |
Notice in the table above they tell us the source of each ingredient:
- The milk thistle extract is derived from the seeds of the plant
- The bacopa extract is derived from the whole plant
- The ashwagandha extract is derived from the root of the plant
- The green tea extract comes from the leaves of the plant
- The turmeric extract is derived from the underground stems (rhizome) of the plant
Other Ingredients
The supplement label also tells the supplement has these other ingredients:
- Microcrystalline Cellulose
- Croscarmellose Sodium Silica
- Modified Cellulose
- Stearic Acid
- Magnesium Stearate
- Maltodextrin
- Medium Chain Triglycerides
These other ingredients play no role in the effects or benefits of the product. They make up the caplets and/or help with the delivery of the ingredients into the body.
I want to commend the LifeVantage company for sponsoring much of the research below. It's rare to find a product with so many clinical studies.
Protandim Research
Protandim is different from a lot of supplements because there really is clinical research on this product. Below is a summary of the Protandim research with links to the studies for those who want to see them for themselves.
Because scientific studies can be wordy and complicated for most people, I will summarize the study and put the research in the proper context to make it easier to understand.
2016 Protandim Research
Study
The Effect of Protandim® Supplementation on Athletic Performance and Oxidative Blood Markers in Runners.
Study summary: In this investigation, researchers tested if taking Protandim (675 mg/day) for 90 days would improve 5K running performance and reduce TBARS. The study involved 38 runners who were randomly given either Protandim or a placebo.
Results: After 90 days, those taking Protandim (1x/day) showed no improvement in running performance compared to those taking the placebo. In addition, Protandim did not reduce TBARS or alter levels of antioxidant enzymes superoxide dismutase (SOD) or glutathione peroxidase (GPX) during resting periods. The researchers report however that in those over age 35, Protandim improved SOD twice as much as those taking the placebo.
See the full review of this study
Study
Longer lifespan in male mice treated with a weakly estrogenic agonist, an antioxidant, an α-glucosidase inhibitor or an Nrf2-inducer.
Study summary: Here, researchers sought to determine what effect various compounds had on extending the life of mice. Protandim was one of the compounds tested. The other compounds tested in the study were fish oil, ursodeoxycholic acid (a bile acid, used to dissolve gall stones), and the diabetes drug, metformin. Different mice received the different compounds for their entire lifespan.
Beginning at 10 months of age, mice received Protandim at a dosage of 600 parts per million (ppm) in their food. This amount was chosen because it was similar to the Protandim dosage used by people. When the mice were 17 months old, the dosage was increased to 1200 ppm because this was thought to be better.
Study results: researchers noted male mice getting Protandim had a 7% increase in average lifespan. The supplement did not lengthen the life span of female mice. The researchers also point out that while the average lifespan was increased, the maximum lifespan did not increase. Regardless, this was a mouse study.
2013 Protandim Research
Study
Study
Upregulation of phase II enzymes through phytochemical activation of Nrf2 protects cardiomyocytes against oxidant stress
Study results: Researchers noted that mouse heart cells treated with Protandim increased the production of an antioxidant/anti-inflammatory enzyme called Heme oxygenase 1 (HO-1) as well as Nrf2. This was a test-tube study using isolated mouse heart cells.
This investigation is derived from a Masters's Thesis in 2010. The title of the MS Thesis is “UPREGULATION OF HEME OXYGENASE-1 AND ACTIVATION OF NRF2 BY THE PHYTOCHEMICALS IN PROTANDIM .” It is not unusual for a quality MS thesis or other graduate work to go through the peer-review process and be published.
2012 Protandim Research
Study
Antioxidants for the Treatment of Patients with Severe Angioproliferative Pulmonary Hypertension? Published in the journal, Antioxidants in Redox Signaling.
Summary: This is a rat study. Protandim increased antioxidant enzymes in rats, protecting the hearts from damage.
Study
Phytochemical activation of Nrf2 protects human coronary artery endothelial cells against an oxidative challenge published in the journal, Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity.
Summary: This is a test tube study. Human coronary (heart) artery cells were treated with Protandim (20 micrograms per milliliter) or placebo (ethanol). All cells were then treated with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to induce free radical damage. Cells treated with Protandim showed less cell death than those getting the placebo.
Study
Protandim does not influence alveolar epithelial permeability or intrapulmonary oxidative stress in human subjects with alcohol use disorders.
Summary: This investigation showed the supplement did not work. To be fair, this was a strange study. Researchers looked at 30 alcoholics . The researchers stuck tubes down the throats of the subjects to take fluid samples from their lungs. They randomly gave the people 1350 mg of Protandim per day or a placebo, for a week. They tested for various things to see if Protandim helped the people. It didn’t.
I don't know how relevant this study is to whether Protandim works or not. I mentioned it because it was a human study. For a much more in-depth review of this study—written by a doctor—see the review posted on ScienceBasedMedicine.org.
2011 Protandim Research
Study
Oxidative stress in health and disease: the therapeutic potential of Nrf2 activation.
Summary: This is a test tube study. Essentially, Protandim altered cellular pathways involved in antioxidant enzyme production and colon cancer, cardiovascular disease (heart disease), and Alzheimer's disease. This is encouraging, but, humans are more complicated than isolated cells. This study doesn’t prove the supplement reduces the risk of any of these diseases.
Study
The role of manganese superoxide dismutase in skin cancer.
Summary: This is a mouse study. Here, researchers reported the supplement reduced tumor growth in mice. For the most part, this appears to be a review of previous research relating free radical damage to the development of skin cancer.
Study
Protandim attenuates intimal hyperplasia in human saphenous veins cultured ex vivo via a catalase-dependent pathway.
Summary. This is a test tube study. Basically, a blood vessel was bathed in Protandim. Researchers noted the supplement reduced the thickening of vein cells.
2010 Protandim Research
Study
The Dietary Supplement Protandim Decreases Plasma Osteopontin and Improves Markers of Oxidative Stress in Muscular Dystrophy Mdx Mice.
Summary. This is a mouse study. Mice were genetically created to have muscular dystrophy. They were given Protandim at a dosage similar to what is recommended for humans. After 6 months, the mice given Protandim showed a 46%reduction in the free radical breakdown of fat (TBARS). TBARS stand for ThiobarBituric Acid Reactive Substances.
The greater the TBAR level, the greater free radical damage. Thus, reducing TBARS is taken to be a good thing. This doesn't prove Protandim helps muscular dystrophy. People with muscular dystrophy should discuss this with their doctor for greater insights.
Study
The chemopreventive effects of Protandim: modulation of p53 mitochondrial translocation and apoptosis during skin carcinogenesis.
Summary: This is a mouse study. Protandim reduced damage to the mitochondria of mouse cells. of this study. The mitochondria, often called the “powerhouse” of the cell, make energy —and makes free radicals in the process. The mitochondria are a major area of anti-aging research.
Study
Chronic pulmonary artery pressure elevation is insufficient to explain right heart failure.
Summary. This is a rat study. Researchers tested if the supplement helped pulmonary blood pressure. After 6 weeks, Protandim did not reduce pulmonary artery blood pressure or the number of lung lesions. These researchers did say “our data point to a cardioprotective effect of Protandim.” But, this is a vague statement.
2009 Protandim Research
Study
Protandim, a fundamentally new antioxidant approach in chemoprevention using mouse two-stage skin carcinogenesis as a model.
Summary: This is a mouse study.
Study
Synergistic induction of heme oxygenase-1 by the components of the antioxidant supplement Protandim.
Summary: This is a test tube study. Cells treated with supplements showed significant increases in glutathione, an antioxidant compound. This is the study LifeVantage lists as “proof” Protandim increases glutathione levels by 300%. It may raise glutathione 300% – in a test tube – but does the same effect occur in people?
2006 Protandim Research
Study
The induction of human superoxide dismutase and catalase in vivo: a fundamentally new approach to antioxidant therapy.
This is a human study. 39 healthy men and women, age 20-78 years were given Protandim (675 mg per day) between 30 and 120 days.
Study Summary:
1. Protandim caused a significant increase in the antioxidant superoxide dismutase (SOD) in red blood cells.
2. TBARS declined by 40% after 30 days
3. SOD in red blood cells increased by 30% after 120 days
4. Catalase decreased by 40% after 120 days
5. There was a non-significant rise (4.9%) in uric acid.
6. No change in CRP levels was seen.
7. No change in HDL, LDL or triglycerides were seen.
Protandim Research Summary
Here is a quick summary of the research:
| Study Year / Title | Study Type (Human, mouse, etc.) |
| 2016 Research | |
| The Effect of Protandim Supplementation on Athletic Performance and Oxidative Blood Markers in Runners | Humans |
| Longer lifespan in male mice treated with a weakly estrogenic agonist, an antioxidant, an α-glucosidase inhibitor or a Nrf2-inducer | mice |
| 2013 Research | |
| Upregulation of phase II enzymes through phytochemical activation of Nrf2 protects cardiomyocytes against oxidant stress | Mouse heart cells |
| 2012 Research | |
| Antioxidants for the treatment of patients with severe angioproliferative pulmonary hypertension? | Rats |
| Phytochemical Activation of Nrf2 Protects Human Coronary Artery Endothelial Cells against an Oxidative Challenge | Test tube study |
| Protandim does not influence alveolar epithelial permeability or intrapulmonary oxidative stress in human subjects with alcohol use disorders. | Humans |
| 2011 Research | |
| Oxidative stress in health and disease: the therapeutic potential of Nrf2 activation. | Test tube study |
| The Role of Manganese Superoxide Dismutase in Skin Cancer | Mice |
| Protandim attenuates intimal hyperplasia in human saphenous veins cultured ex vivo via a catalase-dependent pathway | Test tube study |
| 2010 Research | |
| The Dietary Supplement Protandim® Decreases Plasma Osteopontin and Improves Markers of Oxidative Stress in Muscular Dystrophy Mdx Mice | Mice |
| The Chemopreventive Effects of Protandim: Modulation of p53 Mitochondrial Translocation and Apoptosis during Skin Carcinogenesis | Mice |
| Chronic Pulmonary Artery Pressure Elevation Is Insufficient to Explain Right Heart Failure | Rats |
| 2009 Research | |
| Protandim, a Fundamentally New Antioxidant Approach in Chemoprevention Using Mouse Two-Stage Skin Carcinogenesis as a Model | Mice |
| Synergistic induction of heme oxygenase-1 by the components of the antioxidant supplement Protandim. | Test tube study |
| 2006 Research | |
| The induction of human superoxide dismutase and catalase in vivo: a fundamentally new approach to antioxidant therapy. | Humans |
To be fair, it's possible I may have missed some research. I'll update this table as I become aware of new research.
My Thoughts On The Research
While Protandim has been the subject of several clinical investigations, only 3 of them involved humans. They are:
- The 2006 study (click to see study)
- The 2012 study (click to see study)
- The 2016 study (click to see the study)
Protandim And Weight Loss
Can Protaindm help you lose weight? There is no good evidence for this. None of the above clinical investigations was about weight loss. To the credit of LifeVangage, they do not market this supplement for weight reduction.
Protandim And Multiple Sclerosis
Is this supplement worthwhile if you have Multiple sclerosis (MS)? Some have put forth the idea that disruption of free radical stress – via stabilizing Nrf2 (the stuff this supplement is supposed to improve) – might help MS. So, is there any proof? There was an investigation presented in 2011 at the 5th Joint triennial congress of the European and Americas Committees for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
The title of the presentation was: Nrf2 activators: a novel strategy to promote oligodendrocyte survival in multiple sclerosis? Here, researchers treated rat and human oligodendrocytes with several compounds ― one of which was Protandim ― and then exposed the cells to a chemical to create free radical damage.
These researchers noted Protandim was seen as “the most potent inducer” of Nrf2 antioxidant enzymes defenses. In other words, Protandim helped the most.
This is intriguing, but it's not the same as giving it to people with MS to see if their symptoms improved.
There is also some evidence that stimulating Nrf2 might reduce cellular inflammation via inhibition of NFkb. Inhibition of NFkb is also something another supplement – called Anatabloc – was supposed to do. Currently, though there is little human proof for Protandim improving quality of life in those with MS.
See the Anatabloc review.
Protandim And ABC Primetime
In 2005, this supplement was featured on ABC's Primetime news show. In this segment, ABC correspondent John Quinones met with Dr. Joe McCord, a respected researcher whose name appears on many of the Protandim clinical studies. According to his Wikipedia page, as a grad student, Dr. McCord was involved with the discovery of Superoxide Dismutase, an important free radical savaging enzyme. Here is the ABC Primetime segment :
Basically, John Quinones gets a blood test to measure his TBAR level (an indicator of oxidative stress). He's given Protandim for 2 weeks and then returns to the lab where he has his blood tested again.
Dr. McCord tells John Quinones the supplement caused a “45% reduction” in oxidative stress and goes on to say this is the level seen in a “newborn baby”. The ABC Primetime segment is often used as proof the supplement really works. But, as I see it, one problem is John Quinones doesn't have is blood tested by an independent lab. This is bad science in my opinion.
Of course, the Primetime segment is interesting. But it's been over a decade since this segment aired. You'd think such an impressive result would warrant a follow-up. I wish Primetime and John Quinones would do a follow-up story.
Update. Dr. McCord is now involved with the PB125 supplement.
Protandim And The FDA
In 2017, the FDA reached out to LifeVantage to inform them they considered Protandim to be a drug and not a supplement based on claims made about it as an NRF2 Synergizer. Basically, the FDA was saying the claims being made at the time, made people think the supplement could treat disease. This is something not allowed under US supplement regulation. This may be the reason for the dramatic change in the LifeVantage website and marketing. There are no more claims about the effects of the supplement. Instead, the company now calls itself “a wellness and personal care company” and makes references to “bio-hacking.”
Do Doctors Endorse Protandim?
While the supplement is not endorsed by the American Medical Association (they don't endorse any supplement), I'm sure some physicians believe in it – and others who don't.
Does Protandim Have Caffeine?
According to the product website, each tablet has 1.8mg of caffeine. That's much less than in a cup of coffee and most energy drinks. I don't think this small amount would keep people up at night, but because we are all different it might be wise to not take it close to bedtime.
Is It Kosher?
No. this supplement is not kosher or organic. It is however made in the US. That is good.
Protandim Side Effects
Are there any Protandim dangers out there? I don't think so. I believe this supplement is pretty safe. I am not aware of any side effects. That said, here are a few general things you might want to think about if your not healthy. This list is not complete:
- Start with less than the recommended dosage for the first week to see how you respond
- Speak to your doctor/ pharmacist if you are pregnant or breastfeeding
- Stop taking the supplement at least 2 weeks before having surgery
- Speak to your doctor /pharmacist if you take any prescription drugs like blood thinners
One study noted the supplement might raise uric acid levels (by 4.9%). Would this be bad for those who suffer from gout? Currently, there is no direct proof gout pain is increased by Protandim. See the review of Tart Cherry Juice for more info.
While allergic reactions are likely uncommon, LifeVantage does mention this possibility in some people. Specific symptoms mentioned on the LifeVantage website include:
- gastrointestinal disturbances (i.e., stomach ache, diarrhea, vomiting)
- sometimes as a headache or rash on the hands or feet
Stop taking the supplement if you experience these symptoms.
The company website warns against using the supplement if you are undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy for cancer. This is likely because of the unknowns of combining antioxidants with some cancer therapies. If you have cancer or are getting treatment for it, ask your doctor. I'm glad the LifeVantage company informs people about this.
LifeVantage also stresses the importance of talking to a doctor if you have any autoimmune disease like arthritis or Type I diabetes. I'm not aware of any problems in anyone but I appreciated the company mentioning this.
How To Measure Your TBARS
Remember TBARS are a measure of free radical damage (oxidative stress) of cells. Protandim is said to reduce TBARS. The TBAR test is also called a Lipid Peroxidase test. Ask your physician about this test. For those who really want to know if Protandim is working, getting this test done first—and a month later— might be a good idea. I'm not sure if insurance covers the test or not. Talk to your doctor for more information on this.
Aged Garlic Extract also has some evidence it might reduce TBARS (click to see review)
TrueScience Brand
True Science is a brand name under which various beauty products made by the company can be identified. Products offered under the True Science brand include:
- Shampoo
- Scalp serum
- Facial cleanser
- Eye serum
What is PhysIQ?
PhysIQ is the brand name associated with various fitness-related products. This brand includes:
- Fat burn supplements
- Prebiotics
- Whey protein
- Appetite suppressants
Protandim For Dogs
Protandim Dogs (formally called Canine Health) is for pets. According to the LifeVantage website, this supplement contains 150 mg of the same ingredients as Protandim – as well as omega 3 fatty acids and collagen. The website goes on to say: “Reducing oxidative stress in dogs may reduce many of the disorders associated with aging in canine.” To support this, the organization states a 3rd party animal health company has found the supplement reduces oxidative stress in dogs.
Protandim vs. PB125
PB125, by Pathways Bioscience, is another supplement whose makers claim can reduce TBARS and activate NrF2. PB125 is the supplement by Dr. Joe McCord and associates. Recall Dr. McCord used to be associated with the LifeVantage company.
While PB125 is said to be the next generation of NrF2 activators, no studies have yet compared these supplements to each other to see which is better. The ingredients in both products are different for the most part.
See the PB125 Review for much more information.
Protandim vs. Tru Niagen
The Tru Niagen supplement boasts research showing it can raise NAD+ levels in humans. Tru Niagen is based on nicotniamide riboside a form of niacin (vitamin B3).
The idea of slowing aging by raising NAD+ is different than Protandim. So far no clinical studies have compared these supplements to each other. While the original Protandim does not contain nicotinamide riboside, the Life Vantage company does offer another version called the “NAD Synergizer” which contains niacin.
Protandim vs. Elysium Basis
Basis by Elysium is a popular anti-aging supplement that contains very different ingredients than Protandim. Like Tru Niagen, Elysium Basis also is an NAD+ booster supplement. So, which is better? Unfortunately, there are no head-to-head studies yet.
See the Elysuim Basis Review for more insights.
Protandim vs. SeroVital
You've probably seen TV ads for SeroVital. How does Protandim compare to SeroVital? Both supplements contain different ingredients and are touted to work differently.
While Protandim is said to help boost our bodies antioxidant enzymes, SeroVital is marketed to raise human growth hormone (HGH).
If we just look at the research, Protandim wins hands down. The makers of Serovital only have one study.
Where To Buy Protandim
This supplement is not sold in stores like Walmart, Target, Cosco, CVS, Walgreens, Kmart, or BJs. It's also not sold at GNC or Vitamin Shoppe. Rather, it's mostly purchased from LifeVantage independent distributors.
It is also available online as well although when using a distributor, you may get the individualized attention you might not get by buying it yourself.
Protandim Price
According to the LifeVantage website, a one-month supply (30 capsules) costs $59.99 retail. If you order it through a LifeVantage distributor, it costs $49.99 – and that is on a monthly basis. In other words, that means auto-shipments. If you want to purchase one month only to test drive it first, speak to your LifeVantgage independent distributor.
Protandim Yearly Cost
Let's round the price up to $50 a month. In one year, the supplement would cost you $600. Shipping and tax may be extra. If you only want to order 1 bottle to try yourself, you can get it on Amazon too.
My Suggestions
If you can afford it, go ahead and give it a try for a month or so and see if you feel any better. If you really want to know for sure, get your TBARS measured first.
Remember, exercise will also reduce TBARS too.
Protandim Pro & Con
Here's a quick summary of what I liked and didn't like. These are my opinions. Yours may be different.
| Pro | Con |
|---|---|
| There are clinical studies on Protandim | Not all the studies are on humans |
| Company has been around a long time | Not available in stores |
| Company sponsors research on Protandim | Expensive |
| Lots of hype about benefits |
Does Protandim Work?
While I'm intrigued at the prospect of slowing down aging, I'm can't say for sure if Protandim works or not. The research is intriguing but in my opinion three's not enough human research yet to draw conclusions. So, does Protandim really work? Let's just say I'm looking forward to more human clinical studies.
Here is it is on Amazon If you want to check it out/see what others are saying
Greg,
Aside from the statement I posted above (or were feeding off that statement?), what is your basis for making your statement – or were you just trying to interject that a cup or two of green tea would be the “tipping point” when taking Protandim? Which frankly, taking Protandim might be well over the “tipping point” by itself. Of course we may never know, since no guidelines are yet in place to tell us how many mg of ECGC are safe to consume on a daily basis – day in and out, month in and out, year in and out. It seems it is the magical, mystical charm of the supplement world, where everything is assumed to be safe because it is all natural ingredients.
Come, let us sip some hemlock or Juniper tea together and talk of more worldly matters.
Unless you know the “tipping point” for toxicity, it would be best if you refrained from stating where that “tipping point” is – just to gull a few more people into buying your product or convincing everyone that it is safe because it is all natural. Is your conscience prickling at you yet?
Greg doesn’t no jack about Protandim and as he’s proven time an time again, will say absolutely anything to defend the product.
I am beginning to seriously doubt the ability of some on this blog to read English. Danielle, aware of the synergistic effect of the combination of the ingredients, in the amounts contained in Protandim, asked if drinking green tea would mess that up.
I was replying to that concern. There is no question of reaching some mythical “toxicity tipping point.”. The amount of the ingredients in Protandim are no where near any dangerous level. I was merely pointing out that one should give either the tea or Protandim enough time to work itself out of the digestive system, to avoid interference with the ratio.
Greg said: “I am beginning to seriously doubt the ability of some on this blog to read English. Danielle, aware of the synergistic effect of the combination of the ingredients, in the amounts contained in Protandim, asked if drinking green tea would mess that up. I was replying to that concern. There is no question of reaching some mythical “toxicity tipping point.”. The amount of the ingredients in Protandim are no where near any dangerous level. I was merely pointing out that one should give either the tea or Protandim enough time to work itself out of the digestive system, to avoid interference with the ratio.”
The question had nothing to do with toxicity or danger; it was whether ingesting additional curcumin or green tea would negate the alleged synergistic effect of Protandim, which is, allegedly, dependent on a specific ratio of ingredients. Obviously, it would.
Whether or not Protandim is cleared form the digestive system is not relevant to Danielle’s question, because after being digested the compounds in Protandim would, presumably, enter the systemic circulation and remain there for quite some time. In other words, it’s the blood levels that are important, not the presence or absence of Protandim in the GI tract.
The half-lives of the compounds in Protandim would presumably be at least several hours, so that means that ingesting additional amounts of those compounds (e.g., drinking tea, curry) or ingesting anything else during the day that has an antioxidant effect or an effect on NRF2, would negate the synergistic effect (which has never been demonstrated in humans anyway, just like LifeVantage has never demonstrated an effect on NRF2 in humans who take the product).
Here’s a source indicating that the half of curcumin and its active metabolites (conjugates) is approximately 6 to 24 hours (i.e., after 6-24 hours only half of an administered dose of curcumin is eliminated from the body).
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/4/3/354.long
If it only took an hour or so to clear Protandim from the body, as you suggested, then you’d have to dose it hourly to maintain adequate blood levels of the active compounds.
Also, LifeVantage says nothing at all about giving Protandim time (how much, you didn’t say) ‘to work itself out of the digestive system’; you’d think they would if it had any bearing on the product’s efficacy.
If you knew anything at all about basic pharmacology, you wouldn’t have uttered that baseless response. And if you understood English, as you accuse me of failing to do, then you wouldn’t have tried to distort Danielle’s question into one about toxicity and danger.
Hi Vogel, just saw your reply. I have seen others in this thread. I know you don’t like the product. I’m not saying it’s the greatest thing but just looking at the individual ingredients and what they can do, I don’t have a problem believing that people can have positive results from taking a combination of all ingredients.
I understand you can take them separately for less money. I know people that have had benefits from taking Protandim. One has lower blood sugar and has the test results to prove it. I also know 2 people with Fibromyalgia that have had reduced pain.
I’m not here to argue for or against taking Protandim or try to prove to anyone that it works.
I found this conversation and became very curious about the fact that they actually “Reformulated” it for Japan. So I researched it and posted it here.
Another question that bothers me is the “Synergistic” way it works. Does that mean I will throw the whole process off if I drink green tea throughout the day?
Just my curiosity and thought this would be a good place to voice my thoughts.
Danielle, I appreciate your curiosity 🙂
Danielle said: “I know you don’t like the product. I’m not saying it’s the greatest thing but just looking at the individual ingredients and what they can do, I don’t have a problem believing that people can have positive results from taking a combination of all ingredients.”
It’s not an issue of not liking the product. The issue is that the LifeVantage organization, from the get-go, has been deceitful about pretty much virtually every aspect of the product and the business. And I don’t mean a little deceitful – I mean big fat whooping lies and blatant disregard for the law.
If the product actually did anything, they wouldn’t have resorted to lying about it; and there would be reasonable supportive evidence of its efficacy by now.
It’s also not a question of belief. I can believe that eating corn flakes will make me invisible and levitate, but so what? It’s not enough to believe; it’s all about evidence, or in Protandim’s case, the lack therof.
Danielle said: “I understand you can take them separately for less money. “
True, but more importantly, if you actually wanted to buy the product (although I can’t imagine why you would), you can buy excess inventory from distributors on E-Bay for considerably less than the best discounted price offered by the company.
Danielle said: “I know people that have had benefits from taking Protandim. One has lower blood sugar and has the test results to prove it. I also know 2 people with Fibromyalgia that have had reduced pain.”
You don’t “know” they’ve had benefits. At best, what you know is that they say they have had benefits. Before-and-after blood sugar test results don’t prove anything about cause and effect. Even if it did happen, there are a myriad of explanations for a reduction in blood sugar that are far more plausible than Protandim having been responsible. The same holds true for pain reduction, assuming that it actually happened.
What you’ve described proves nothing; it’s an anonymous second-hand testimonial, which, as evidence goes, is completely unreliable.
Also bear in mind that people have made similar sketchy anonymous testimonials about a plethora of other MLM supplement products. In fact, if you take MLMs at their word, then pretty much every supplement they’re ever sold prevents/cures cancer, diabetes, etc. If that were the case then we’d essentially be living in a parallel universe where only ripoff MLMs in Utah hold the keys to a hidden disease-free utopia.
I hope you can see how absurdly farfetched all of this is. These people are chromic liars and serial con artists, not purveyors of miraculous secret wonder cures.
Danielle said: “I’m not here to argue for or against taking Protandim or try to prove to anyone that it works.”
It’s good that you’re not here to prove it works; It would be an impossible task given that there isn’t proof that it works.
Danielle said: “Another question that bothers me is the ‘Synergistic’ way it works. Does that mean I will throw the whole process off if I drink green tea throughout the day?”
Yes, that’s exactly what it would mean – if the synergism story were true; but it’s not. The company has never demonstrated a synergistic effect outside the test tube. They haven’t even shown that it increases NRF2 in humans who take Protandim, or that NRF2 activation is the mechanism mediating the product’s alleged effects on oxidative stress (which it doesn’t actually have as indicated by the second of their two clinical trials).
In theory, not only would ingesting some green tea throw off the synergistic effect, but so would consuming a bit of turmeric or anything else that has an antioxidant effect or activates NRF2; and as for the latter, just about everything activates NRF2, from vitamin C to zinc. The synergism angle is a stupid marketing ploy; nothing more.
How convenient that McCord would engineer this synergism marketing angle; a man who had a multimillion dollar stake in the company and who, in conjunction with the company, has repeatedly lied to and misled the public about Protandim.
Danielle, it would mess up the synergistic effect of Protandim were you to drink a cup of green tea at the same meal you take Protandim. But if you drink the tea a couple of hours before or after taking Protandim you will have no problem. The same goes with using any of the other ingredients as spices in food.
Pure speculation on you part Greg. You have no reliable source for this.
http://www.fasebj.org/gca?allch=&submit=Go&gca=fasebj%3B28%2F1_Supplement%2FLB399
This was the link. Not sure if you can paste it in your browser. It was on Globenewswire.com. I found it by googling ” reformulation of protandim for Japan”
Hope that helps
Danielle, yes that’s the study we were talking about 🙂
Here are five the American College of Gastroenterology is warning about:
GREEN TEA
“Green tea is widely used. If you drink a few cups a day, it is unlikely you will suffer any adverse reaction,” Bonkovsky said. “But the extracts are concentrated formulations.”
The active ingredients are a class of compounds called catechins. “They can deplete some of the protective molecules in cells such as glutathione that are there to protect us from injury. A high dose of green tea extract can lead in susceptible persons to actually quite severe or even fatal liver injury,” Bonkovsky said.
One of the catechins most suspected is epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG).
“We don’t really fully understand the basis for the susceptibility, but it seems likely to be a combination of genetic factors…but also maybe related to their diets, to whether or not they have been drinking alcohol,” he added.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has rejected some of the health claims made by makers of products using green tea.
Just thought I would pass this along.
One possible reason the ashwagandha is considered medicinal is because it comes from the night shade family of plants – just a little is fine, but uncontrolled can lead to an unsafe drop in blood pressure and hence, death.
Greetings everyone! Here is a link to a recently released study about Protandim and ovarian cancer.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1534360035
Greg B
Greg, this looks like a MS thesis or dissertation. Also it looks like basically a mouse study yes?
Yes, this looks like work done by a MS student at the Mayo Clinic. As I read it, the study involved both in vivo and mouse work. Does any of that invalidate the study? No claims are being made for Protandim. The study just reports encouraging results that warrant further study.
Greg, it doesn’t invalidate the study but it just adds to the bunch of similar mouse/test tube studies which I feel weighs protandim down. I want to see people studies because protandim is marketed to people.
There will be a human study starting next month, by a scientist at U of L, to see the effect Protandim has on long-distance runners. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02172625?term=protandim&rank=2
Greg thanks. This study will it be starting or pilublished next month?
It starts next month, and is scheduled to run for 90 days. Publication won’t be until sometime next year.
Thanks Greg I’ll be keeping an eye out for it.
Greg B said: “It starts next month, and is scheduled to run for 90 days. Publication won’t be until sometime next year.”
It’s interesting that news of this study is coming from an anonymous company shill posting on a blog instead of from the company’s website or press release to notify the investment community. Could run afoul of the SEC if they leak information to the rumor mill in this manner.
Second, you can’t say with any certainty that it will be published at all, let alone next year. Whether or not it will be published can only be determined after the study has been completed and the manuscript has been submitted, reviewed, and accepted by a journal.
They may not even submit it for publication; the study might be a total bust; it might get rejected by every journal. But based on what Greg’s saying, perhaps the company already knows what the outcome will be, so the rest of the exercise is just for show.
Lastly, isn’t it telling that they’re still mucking around with silly studies like this; still attempting to show that it lowers oxidative stress (after the last failure) and studying its effects on exercise recovery, instead of trying to thoroughly follow-up on its alleged effects on diseases, which they played up by touting weak in vitro studies and BS illegal testimonials.
They’ve done a mere 2 studies in humans in the last 8 years, and yet they now squander resources and opportunities by studying it in runners. It’s the only trial they have in the pipeline too, and the other 3 were busts (1 showed negative results, 1 was never published or mentioned again, and 1 was withdrawn before it got off the launch pad).
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=protandim&Search=Search
Vogel I think you missed the link to the proposed study I don’t remember which thread it was sorry
Claudia said: “Vogel I think you missed the link to the proposed study I don’t remember which thread it was sorry.”
No I saw it. It wasn’t posted on the LifeVantage site and I have’t seen any evidence that the company ever publicly discussed this proposed study. The last time time they had a couple of planned human studies in the pipeline, they blasted it in press release.
http://investor.lifevantage.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=610955
The link Greg posted was to clinicaltrials.gov. The entry mentions nothing about expected publication dates. So either Greg is leaking what might be considered insider information or just he’s just taking a bad guess guess and fueling rumors.
I think it was to an ovarian cancer study they were proposing, if I remember right ……. it was the proposal and what they wanted to study but that the study had not begun and I’m not sure if the proposal was accepted, I assume so since it is politically correct and all about the ‘women’s issues’ you know. Women have a lot of issues apparently, or so I’m hearing.
Wow, so now they roped a student into implying that Protandim can treat ovarian cancer.
Greg works for the company and knows that he can’t legally refer to studies like this, but he does it anyway. Business as usual LieVantage.
you guys might want to read this article on a blog called science based medicine I was on it for a different reason but found Protandum
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/brief-update-protandim/
comments are interesting too it was written after the last human test in 2012
Indeed, Claudia it’s a good write-up.
You need professional counseling. Your hatred has distorted your ability to think straight. All I was doing was bringing this blog’s attention to another study about Protandim, which is what this blog is about. Can you tell us how Lifevantage “roped” this student into studying Protandim? Mr Prasongsook is a student at the Mayo Clinic, which LV has absolutely no control over.
Has the Mayo Clinic become a shill for network marketing? Did you actually read the abstract? This study was undertaken in response to the improvement experienced by a ovarian cancer patient who took Protandim. They wanted to find out if Protandim had anything to do with said improvement. The study showed that it quite possibly did, and that further studies are underway. Do you have a problem with that? Is that not how science is done?
Greg B said: You need professional counseling. Your hatred has distorted your ability to think straight. All I was doing was bringing this blog’s attention to another study about Protandim, which is what this blog is about.
“And I appreciated that you brought the abstract to my attention, as it’s quite disturbing on many levels. I expressed my impressions about the abstract and you responded back with a hostile and aggressive personal attack; so you can drop the pretense that all you’re here to do is provide information. Your other purpose (aside from chronically providing misinformation), apparently, is to be insulting – just own it and don’t posture.
Greg B said:: “Can you tell us how Lifevantage “roped” this student into studying Protandim? Mr Prasongsook is a student at the Mayo Clinic, which LV has absolutely no control over.”
Since LifeVantage never discuses how it is that they rope students into doing their dirty work, we can only take an educated guess – e.g., by offering funding or some other kind of quid pro quo arrangement, like publication/grant writing support, etc. What evidence do you have to back up your assertion that LifeVantage had no control?
Greg B said: “Has the Mayo Clinic become a shill for network marketing?”
I don’t see that Mayo Clinic was directly involved. It’s just an abstract written by an MSc student who happens to be studying there. Not surprisingly, though, you make a typical fallacious appeal to authority by invoking Mayo Clinic’s name to lend a false air of credibility. Had you been forthcoming, you would have mentioned initially that this is nothing more than an abstract (not a published study) from an MSc student’s thesis. The boasting brings back memories of the many instances when the company lied about one of their studies being conducted at Harvard.
Greg B said: “Did you actually read the abstract? This study was undertaken in response to the improvement experienced by a ovarian cancer patient who took Protandim. They wanted to find out if Protandim had anything to do with said improvement. The study showed that it quite possibly did, and that further studies are underway. Do you have a problem with that?
So one patent supposedly said that Protandim cured their cancer, and then this was followed-up by a student doing a few test tube experiments (presumably funded/initiated by LifeVantage) that were never published in a journal, and now you’re claiming that this is evidence that Protandim quite possibly cures cancer? Yeah, I have a huge problem with that and so would the FDA — you are prohibited from referring to this ‘study’ (abstract anyway), as it positions Protandim as a drug for the treatment of a disease.
However, I have no doubt that all of the distributors have already been told about it and will use it for marketing the product; just the same way they’ve misused the other test tube studies in the past.
Vogel, in response to your screed, I say this–where is your evidence that LV had anything to do with student Prasongsook’s study? There is nothing in the citation/abstract to hint at such a connection. You are merely assuming such. I don’t have to prove that LV did not back this study, you have to prove that LV did; you made the accusation.
As for the Mayo Clinic’s connection, this study was done by a student at the MC medical school, meaning that it had to pass muster with Mr Prasongsook’s advisor, and a three-member committee of other professors. The fact that it did so, and has been published, indicates that it is solid science, and that the paper most likely received an A. Thus the study, while not the final word on the subject, is credible. Also, this is not just an abstract; if you will notice, this is just a summation of a 99-page study, which can be purchased by any interested party. Besides,THERE CAN NOT BE AN ABSTRACT UNLESS THERE IS A FULL STUDY, SINCE AN ABSTRACT IS A SUMMATION OF A STUDY! (I put that in CAPS in hope that you will get it, and stop trying to mislead people into thinking that an abstract means there was not a real study performed and published.)
No one, not LV, not me, not Mr Prasongsook, not the Mayo Clinic, no one, has made a claim that Protandim cures ovarian cancer. Your insistence on dismissing as irrelevant a legitimate study just shows your irrational, anti-science bias. As for using this for marketing, no, we will not do so, other than to say that Protandim is important enough that universities and medical schools are doing studies on it to see how it might affect various ailments. We will make no claims about Protandim curing anything until we have solid scientific backing. If any distributors may have done so, they were either going beyond what they were taught in training, or (more likely) they were misunderstood by an inattentive hearer.
Greg B said: “You are merely assuming such. I don’t have to prove that LV did not back this study, you have to prove that LV did; you made the accusation.”
I don’t have to prove squat. That’s what funding disclosures are for. There was no such disclosure in the abstract you proffered. I’ll simply ask you – who funded the study? In the absence of evidence, it’s perfectly logical to assume that LFVN was involved, since they’ve been involved in virtually every other study to date. The company ahs oftent tired to disguise their involvement in the studies and various financial conflicts of interest; much as you have here by failing to acknowledge that you have a financial conflict of interest with respect to LifeVantage. Your failure to disclose it is an FTC violation BTW.
Greg B said: “As for the Mayo Clinic’s connection, this study was done by a student at the MC medical school, meaning that it had to pass muster with Mr Prasongsook’s advisor, and a three-member committee of other professors. The fact that it did so, and has been published, indicates that it is solid science, and that the paper most likely received an A.”
First of all you complained about making assumptions in the absence of evidence; you have none about how this abstract came into existence and yet you are pontificating as though your (uneducated) opinion is factual. Second, the study wasn’t published, so if that is your criteria for whether or not it is sold science, this fails abjectly. Lastly, a thesis doesn’t get a letter grade, but it doesn’t surprise me that you know nothing about grad school because you’ve never set foot in the realm of higher science education.
Greg B said: “Thus the study…is credible.”
You wouldn’t be able to recognize a credible study if it bit you on the arse. We may as well be getting that statement from a shoe salesman or a burger flipper. You’ve not only failed to demonstrate competence in distinguishing credible from incredible science, you’ve proven your incompetence many times over.
Greg B screamed: “THERE CAN NOT BE AN ABSTRACT UNLESS THERE IS A FULL STUDY”
Fine. Then get us the full study and we’ll talk about it when you do.
Greg B said: “No one, not LV, not me, not Mr Prasongsook, not the Mayo Clinic, no one, has made a claim that Protandim cures ovarian cancer.”
You sure as heck did. You said: “This study was undertaken in response to the improvement experienced by a ovarian cancer patient who took Protandim. They wanted to find out if Protandim had anything to do with said improvement. The study showed that it quite possibly did.”
Simply lying and saying you didn’t say it only shows what a dishonest desperado you are, and by extension, the entire organization as well.
Greg B said: “As for using this for marketing, no, we will not do so,”
Too late; you already did.
Greg B said: “We will make no claims about Protandim curing anything until we have solid scientific backing.”
Absence of evidence has It’s never stopped distributors like you from making illegal medical claims in the past, and there’s no reason to think that will ever change.
Ashwagandha is an active ingredient of Protandim, a commercially available, plant-based nutraceutical that activates nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2)-like 2 (Nrf2). In some countries ashwagandha is considered medicinal and thus is subject to regulation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of Protandim without ashwagandha, and Protandim with piperine substituted for ashwagandha, on circulating markers of oxidative stress. 33 overweight/obese adults, aged 45-69 years, were assigned to one of three 30-day interventions comprising daily consumption of: placebo (PLAC: 719 mg maltodextrin), Protandim minus ashwagandha (P-A: a blend of milk thistle extract, bacopa monnieri extract, green tea extract, turmeric powder, and maltodextrin), or Protandim with piperine substituted for ashwagandha (P+P).
Compared with baseline, circulating plasma thiobarbituric acid reactive substances were unaffected by PLAC (n=13; 4.70±0.44 vs. 6.09±0.84 nmol/mL; mean±SE), or P-A (n=7; 5.44±0.86 vs. 7.79±1.42 nmol/mL), but were decreased with P+P (n=13; 6.31±0.91 vs. 4.90±0.47 nmol/mL); P=0.02. Nrf2 activation may provide protection from chronic diseases associated with increased oxidative stress. These preliminary data suggest, in countries where ashwagandha is considered medicinal, piperine may be an acceptable substitute ingredient in the Nrf2 activator, Protandim.
This is the article I found on why the change.
Danielle, whats the title of that study?
It’s the same FASEB abstract that I linked to above. The title is:
“Oxidative stress is decreased with short-term Protandim use when piperine is substituted for ashwagandha”
It’s doubtful that it well ever be published as a full study.
Vogel, Thsts what I thought. Just wanted to be sure. Thanks.
Here’s the deal on why LifeVantage reformulated the product for Japan.
“Also in fiscal 2013, we introduced a new formulation of our flagship product, Protandim in response to recently enacted Japan legislation in Japan that prohibited us from distributing a dietary supplement containing ashwagandha, one of the active ingredients in Protandim.”
Source: LifeVantage Form 10-K (Sep 12, 2013)
http://investor.lifevantage.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=849146-13-13
“Certainly, the reformulation of Protandim, which was announced by the local regulatory body in Japan, in early 2012, there was a 12-month period of time run-up to up to companies like ours that have products with certain ingredient that they found to be unacceptable on a go-forward basis that was Ashwagandha to either reformulate or change your business model or what have you. Obviously, we chose to reformulate.”
Source: Lifevantage’s CEO Discusses F3Q13 Results – Earnings Call Transcript (May 9, 2013)
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1423061-lifevantages-ceo-discusses-f3q13-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
So much for the company’s fairy tale about the unique synergistic blend of 5 herbal ingredients eh? I wonder if Japanese consumers are aware that they’re getting ‘Protandim Lite’. I’m sure that the target audience wouldn’t care though, just as they wouldn’t in the US. The product is an afterthought; it’s just bait to get people into the pyramid scheme. It may as well be made of sawdust.
I was interested to hear that Protandim had changed their ingredients for Japan and have spent a lot of time researching if it was true. I found that they did. The new formula now has Piperine instead of Ashwagandha due to regulations in Japan.
I have mixed feelings about this now as well. I know several people that have had some amazing effects since beginning Protandim so I hate to discount it’s benefits. This is an upsetting find for me though.
Wonder what the Japanese have against Ashwagandha?
Danielle: “The new formula now has Piperine instead of Ashwagandha due to regulations in Japan.”
Yup. Not only that but the abstract that LifeVantage published showed that its effect on TBARS (a 22% reduction) was only about half of that reported in their initial clinical study of the US version (the result that they could not replicate in a later better-designed study).
http://www.fasebj.org/content/28/1_Supplement/LB399.abstract
The abstract in FASEB was a bloody mess though. The study was so bad (e.g. mismatched group sizes and baseline TBAR values, anomalous 30% increase in TBARS in placebo group and 43% increase in the Protandim minus ashwaganda group) that it’s inconclusive whether the Japanese version of Protandim did anything at all.
Danielle: “I know several people that have had some amazing effects since beginning Protandim.”
Amazing eh? Like what? Miraculous lightening of wallets?
Vogel,
I replied to you by adding another comment below before I noticed the reply button. I saw the same abstract that you posted. I don’t have any science background but I don’t see the results that you are stating. Am I just not seeing it because I don’t understand the scientific portion? How does it show the study was bad and increased TBARS?
Danielle said: “Vogel, I replied to you by adding another comment below before I noticed the reply button. I saw the same abstract that you posted. I don’t have any science background but I don’t see the results that you are stating. Am I just not seeing it because I don’t understand the scientific portion? How does it show the study was bad and increased TBARS?”
It requires only simple arithmetic. TBARS in plasma were measured prior to taking the supplements and again after 30 days post-ingestion. The results reported were as follows:
Placebo (13 subjects): Baseline = 4.70 nmol/mL (uM) / Post-treatment = 6.09 nmol/mL (uM)
PT minus ashwaganda (7 subjects): Baseline = 5.44 / Post-treatment = 7.79
PT minus ashwaganda + piperine (13 subjects): Baseline = 6.31 / post-treatment = 4.90
The corresponding percent changes in TBARS, which we have to calculate ourselves because they weren’t actually reported, are as follows:
Placebo = 30% increase
PT minus ashwaganda = 30% increase
PT minus ashwaganda + piperine = 22% decrease
So what does it all mean? The first thing to notice is that the baseline values and group sizes were asymmetrical. The baseline TBARS value in the group designated to receive Japanese Protandim (with piperine) was 34% higher than the baseline value in the placebo group. Similarly, the baseline value in the no-ashwaganda group was 43% higher than the baseline value in the Japanese Protandim group.. That indicates poor study design because the baseline values should be roughly the same. It also makes the post-treatment data unreliable because any differential effects observed between the Japanese Protandim group and the placebo group could have been due to the higher baseline value in the latter (i.e. it’s easier to show a reduction when the baseline TBAR value is elevated to begin with). Notice also that there were only 7 subjects in the no-ashwaganda group and 14 in the other groups. This is further evidence of shoddy study design because the groups should ideally be similar in size (it undermines the validity of statistical analysis of the data otherwise).
Now let’s look at the post-treatment effects. TBARS increased by 30% in the placebo group; there is no reasonable explanation for that. It looks like just plain bad (i.e., unreliable) data. The same happened in the no-ashwaganda group – TBARS increased by 30% in these subjects. No logical explanation for that either, but the conclusion would be that without piperine added, the product promotes oxidative stress. Lastly, Japanese Protandim only decreased TBARS by 22% which is roughly half of the 40% decrease reported with the US version in the initial clinical trials by Nelson et al. (the shoddy uncontrolled study conducted by McCord and other company employees under the aegis of LifeVantage). The claim about Protandim decreasing oxidative stress by 40% is the company’s core claim about the product.
Also notice that the post-treatment TBARS value in the Japanese Protandim group (4.90 uM) was roughly the same as that of the placebo group before treatment (4.70 um). What claim would that support, you might ask? That Japanese Protandim can lower your TBARS level to what it would be if you did nothing.
Another interesting detail pertains to the company’s idiotic claim that Protandim reduces TBARS levels to those of a newborn baby or a 20-year old. Notice that the post-treatment value in the Japanese Protandim group (4.90 uM) was almost 5-times higher than the youngest subjects had at baseline in the Nelson et al. study (at or below 1 uM) and was even higher than the the older subjects (80 years) had at baseline (3.5 uM) in the Nelson study. So clearly, Japanese Protandim did not reduce TBARS levels to those of a newborn baby/20-year old, and in fact the values after treatment with this product were higher than those of an 80-year old. That crushes yet another marketing claim.
Bear in mind the TBARS test is notoriously unreliable and, therefore, all of the effects noted could have been due to random measurement error alone; especially so given the small group sizes and mismatched baseline values. The study was so bad it’s unlikely to ever be published (note that abstracts are not considered to be reliable study reports; publication of the full study is necessary). Also noteworthy is the fact that this research group has admitted to having been compensated by LifeVantage in the past; thus, financial bias comes into play as well.
I wrote a complete analysis of this study elsewhere.
http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/lifevantage-protandim-scam/comment-page-35/#comment-1234513
The last thing that bears mention is that the type of analysis I provided is far beyond the ability of untrained individuals, like the distributors that sell Protandim or the vast majority of their target audience; and yet the company directs them to read these studies and accept them as indisputable proof of Protandim’s efficacy. I hope you can see now how stupid that idea is. Laypeople are completely incapable of conducting a meaningful analysis of a study or reading between the lines. The company’s intent is not to educate their sales force or prospective customers; it is to boggle them with seemingly impressive documents that they simply will not understand – it’s deceptive manipulative marketing at its worst. We see direct evidence of this throughout the company’s marketing materials; for example, touting impressive names like Harvard (in fact, LifeVantage lied about Harvard’s involvement) and other institutions without regard for what the studies actually showed, and trying (illegally) to create a false impression that these studies demonstrate Protandim’s ability to prevent/treat diseases.
Just called it as I saw it. Greg often puts his foot in his mouth. This is an example of him doing so. I twisted nothing. Only an idiot would come to his aid with that lame comeback. If you go back and read his entire missive, you might see. Others commented on his duplicity in that post too.
You seem be suggesting that if a “bonafide” distributor (other than a minister) dupes people into buying Protandim, then it isn’t fleecing people.
Greg said…..
That the prospect is being approached because of his church membership need not be mentioned. Under my idea Steve would get no profit from whatever anyone in the church buys or earns, but since his task is to shepherd the flock, not fleece it, that is how is should be.
So Greg, does that mean you admit you are “fleecing” people when you are advising them to take Protandim. Inquiring people want to know.
Scott, you made a leap of logic that an idiot would be embarrassed to make. You know what Greg meant and deliberately twisted it.
Greg said: “That the prospect is being approached because of his church membership need not be mentioned. Under my idea Steve would get no profit from whatever anyone in the church buys or earns, but since his task is to shepherd the flock, not fleece it, that is how is should be.”
Scott M responded: “So Greg, does that mean you admit you are ‘fleecing’ people when you are advising them to take Protandim. Inquiring people want to know.
Seems like a reasonable question. I think it was case of inadvertent candor on Greg’s part. Greg’s sneaky advice was for Steve to give his hypothetical upline the shears and let him do the fleecing.
Ronaldmckenzie attacked: “Scott, you made a leap of logic that an idiot would be embarrassed to make. You know what Greg meant and deliberately twisted it.”
Temper, temper Ronald. It wasn’t a leap of logic at all; it was a perfectly logical inference. Just for that display of indecorous and counterproductive conduct, I think I’ll send out one more complaint to the FDA tonight to blow the whistle on another LifeVantage distributor who’s illegally marketing Protandim.
Want to make another witless attack?
I had never heard of Protandim until my doctor recently recommended it to me to help with thyroid, weight and energy issues. I purchased a one month’s supply using a code he gave me (not realizing he was a distributor, and that was his ID. He did not inform me of this). $62 total ($50 for one bottle, plus tax and shipping), a price I really can’t afford monthly.
Dr. said some people feel better the very first day. Definite results in a few weeks to 30 days. He said his nurse lost 50 pounds and swears by it. Well, just like that little old ant, I had high hopes, but it has just been money down the drain.
My diet and exercise plan is doing a better job than the supposed miracle pill, though if I had started to feel better, gain more energy, and lose more weight, I’d have been a proponent and probably would have wanted to sell it to the world as a wonder supplement.
I am considering it a $62 lesson, and I won’t buy it again. I feel slightly duped that my doctor was not honest in telling me he was selling it and would make a commission on my purchase. But again, if it really worked, I would not have cared so much about that. I am sorry to report that in my case, it did absolutely nothing to help in the ways he said it would, and was a waste of my minimal income.
Thank you Joe, for this article, I wish I had found it and read it before I ordered.
For those who feel amazing on this supplement, I am happy for you and wish it would have worked for me too. (Wait, I have not seen anyone share visible results, such as before and after photos and their weight loss journey on their personal blog — is anyone really losing weight on this, as my doctor says they will? Where are those people? Why aren’t they speaking up? I do see distributors writing about positive results as part of their sales pitch, but not anyone else? If it had worked for me, you bet I’d be telling everyone about it!)
Tricia, Im sorry that happened to you but glad you were able to find me. I dont think Ive ever heard of Protandim being marketed for weight loss before. I have updated my review with my thoughts on this in case anyone else runs into the same issue. Tricia, was this your primary doctor (MD or DO) who was selling Protandim? Just curious.
Joe, he is my primary MD. (Sorry it took so long to reply. I didn’t think anyone had answered my comment because I didn’t get any notifications. I happened to be thinking about this subject right now and hunted my comment down to see if there was any feedback. I will click the notify button this time!)
Castles, thanks for getting back. I always reply to people 🙂
Tricia, your doctor should have told you he was a distributor. He also should have explained to you what Protandim does. It is NOT intended to be a treatment for any particular disease, so if you told you to take it for your thyroid he was wrong to do so.
Also, he had you buy the bottle at retail; you could have gotten it for $10 less had you signed on as a Preferred Customer.
Also, for person with a serious medical condition like yours 30 days is often not long enough to feel the effect of lowering Oxidative Stress. I strongly recommend that you give Protandim at least a 90-day trial, for the sake of your overall health.
As for your weight loss, diet and exercise will do for that. Protandim is not a weight loss product, and the company makes no such claims.
Since this doctor has acted unethically in this matter, just go to http://www.lifevantage.com to order (and don’t use his distributor number); he deserves no profit from trying to deceive you with unsupported claims.
Also, please report what he did to the company; we don’t need bad distributors.
Greg B said: “Tricia, your doctor should have told you he was a distributor.”
Master at stating the obvious. Should but didn’t.
Greg B sad: “He also should have explained to you what Protandim does.”
It does nothing. The doctor should not have been plugging Protandim to a patient under any circumstances.
Greg B said: “It is NOT intended to be a treatment for any particular disease, so if you told you to take it for your thyroid he was wrong to do so.”
Yes, distributors shouldn’’ do this and yet they all do it chronically.
Greg B said: “Also, for person with a serious medical condition like yours 30 days is often not long enough to feel the effect of lowering Oxidative Stress.”
Lowering oxidative stress doesn’t feel like anything, so she shouldn’t expect to notice any effect at all whether taking if for 30 days or 90 days. Besides, according to McCord, the effects on TBARS reach maximal levels at 5-12 days, as stated in the 2006 paper:
“Fig. 3 shows that the response of plasma TBARS is fairly rapid, with most of the change having occurred by 5 to 12 days.” [Nelson et al. The induction of human superoxide dismutase and catalase in vivo: A fundamentally new approach to antioxidant therapy. Free Radic Biol Med. 2006 Jan 15;40(2):341-7]
http://www.docmarvin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2006Study.pdf
Also, stop capitalizing “Oxidative Stress”; it is not a proper name so use lower case.
Greg B said: “I strongly recommend that you give Protandim at least a 90-day trial, for the sake of your overall health.”
I showed above, based on McCord’s findings, that your recommendation to take it for 90 days is baseless. Aside from that, the product has no impact on “health”. TBARS are not synonymous with health.
Greg B said: “Also, please report what he did to the company; we don’t need bad distributors.”
The company has nothing but bad distributors and they will do nothing if they receive a report. They have had ample opportunity to police offenders in the past and they have done zilch, whcih indcates that they do greatly value these bad distributors”.
Report the maggot to the AMA and FDA instead. Also, post his name here so we can look into his background more thoroughly.
Tricia, a question i forgot to ask earlier–what did your doctor say when you told him the Protandim did not seem to be having any effect on your thyroid problem?
Two paragraphs into my post i shifted in my chair and accidently brushed my iPad and poof my writing either vanished or was sent. Would like to continue my post. Not sure if I should start over or continue. Dang it!
Susan, so sorry that happened (Its one of the reasons I prefer a “real” keyboard). can you check your browser “history” to see if its there? I’ll post whatever you want to share if you would like to start over.
I want to share the experience my partner Steve is having with six months and counting on Protandim. He suffers from the rare unenviable genetic condition of Alpha One Anti-Trypsin Deficiency, level ZZ. His liver does not release the trypsin enzyme. The consequences of this are evident in his lungs which have lost elasticity , preventing him from exhaling with any force, resulting in a life hampered by extreme oxygen deficiency. If you want to know what this is like go about your day with your hand held over your mouth.
Anyway, I’ve known him for eight years. He was diagnosed 12 years ago. He was once considered a Nordic god on telemark skies on the slopes of Vail Mountain by winter and elite mountain bicyclist every other season. Now he’s relegated as spectator to life on oxygen. Lack of exercise coupled with depression of knowing there’s no way around being in a body that takes in less and less oxygen as time ticks on further complicate his condition. He’s still a blast to be around as he genuinely loves life and nature and plays great electric guitar.
We live 100 miles apart and I travel to the home we share together once a week for my three days off. Seeing each other once a week dramatizes the affects we are both feeling on Protandim. I’ve been taking it one month longer than Steve. It was after my third month that he started noticing a change for the better in my appearance. “gosh, Susie, you look younger, what’s going on here?”.
And I am feeling stronger, livelier, fresher, just better. But what’s happening with Steve is truly nothing short of astounding. His days prior to Protandim were mostly lousy and bed ridden and I would show up kinda grouchy cuz nothing was done around the place and I was forced on my days off to clean up, shop for groceries, and cook all our meals. That’s all changed. He’s up and around everyday busying himself quite happily with the chores life demands. He’s painting the deck! The place looks better and so does he! His facial color is rosy. I look at him in utter amazement with the changes taking place.
All three of his Doctor’s are noticing his improvement and are interested in Protandim. Everyone that knows him is. Is he cured? No. He’s still on oxygen, he still can’t ski or ride a bike. But what we’ve got back is real quality of life. Which is priceless.
So don’t be too quick to write Protandim off as a worthless money making scam. Don’t be so arrogant as to accuse Dr McCord for selling out because he enthusiastically backs this product. If you’re considering taking Protandim, (and there really is no good reason not to,) give it time to activate your body’s production of anti oxidants. Invest $300 in a six month supply, take it faithfully everyday and then let us know how you’re feeling.
Happy for you both to supposedly experience positive results. I too was taking protandim for 6 months. (Healthy 53 yr old male – exercise fanatic ). Annual physical tested high for cholesterol. Never was high before. Stopped taking protandim, 3 months after had a follow up blood test, and poof- back to normal.
Must say also that during the time I was taking protandim, I never experienced any positive “feelings” from it.
Have a still unopened bottle (couldn’t stop the last shipment in time) Be happy to sell it to you at a discount.
Cheers
Hi Phil —
Thanks for the interesting comments. I just wanted to mention that “cholesterol” is important for brain function, so having it go high only while you were supplementing with Protandim is curious to me.
If we don’t have cholesterol in our diet, the liver will make some. If you hadn’t changed your diet, why would your liver start producing more at that time? Do you know if your doctor ran “Liver Function” tests at the same time as the blood lipid tests?
As I said, I am very curious about the relationship you experienced with Protandim and higher cholesterol.
Since you mentioned you were an “exercise fanatic” I wanted to point you to a paper where they did a double-blind study in France on runners prior to and during an extreme running competition – the Marathon des Sables – that consisted of six long races in the desert.
The study had nothing to to with Protandim but it did take a look at what the effect of a moderate mutivitamin and mineral supplementation had on the ability of the body to deal with oxidative stress, which is what Protandim is also shown to improve. They also used TBARS to form some of the conclusions.
If you’re interested, the name of the study is [ Multivitamin-mineral supplementation prevents lipid peroxidation during “the Marathon des Sables” ] and a internet search will give you the abstract, it was published by the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.
As you remarked earlier, “I never experienced any positive “feelings” from it (protandim).” Neither were the runners able to tell whether they were getting the supplement or the placebo…and just as you had no feeling as to when your cholesterol went up or came back down.
Mr McKenzie-
Thanks for your reply. But I have to say – puhleeze- been working out hard since teens; that means decades. No change in diet.
Got sucked in to protandim by a distributor that told me he was feeling better than he had in years (key word there is distributor) and due to the apparent reduction of oxidative stress, was able to recover faster. Not true (for me).
Only had a deleterious affect on cholesterol. Three months later- back to normal.
ronaldmckenzie said: “Phil…I just wanted to mention that “cholesterol” is important for brain function, so having it go high only while you were supplementing with Protandim is curious to me. If we don’t have cholesterol in our diet, the liver will make some. If you hadn’t changed your diet, why would your liver start producing more at that time? Do you know if your doctor ran “Liver Function” tests at the same time as the blood lipid tests?”
Notice that if something positive happens while taking Protandim, distributors will immediately conclude that Protandim was the cause; but if something negative happens, well that couldn’t possibly be due to Protandim; it’s shrugged off without a second thought. How perverse! They need a lesson on spurious relationships, the fallacy of confusing correlation with causality, regression to the mean, spontaneous remission, observer bias, demand characteristics, placebo effects, etc…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence#Correlation_and_causality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_remission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_characteristics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect
Screwing with the body’s reduction-oxidation balance (which is what Protandim supplementation is designed to do) can cause a myriad of adverse effects, including serious ones.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/10/742.full
Same holds true of NRF2 activation. During clinical development, compounds that activate NRF2 were found to have significant toxicities; in some cases so serious that the compounds were abandoned, as in the case of Oltipraz, which, incidentally, was shown to increase the production of the free radical superoxide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFE2L2#As_a_drug_target
Because Protandim has not undergone stringent safety testing, there’s no reason to assume that it is safe or that it doesn’t cause adverse effects. Aside from what the active ingredients themselves might do, there’s always the possibility of accidental contamination or even deliberate spiking, which has happened with MLM supplements in the past, including those of notorious companies like Metabolife (headed by former LifeVantage CEO David Brown) and Chemins Co. (former manufacturer of Protandim). LifeVantage company has already demonstrated their unreliability with respect to manufacturing when they had to recall 250,000 bottles of Protandim due to metal contamination (total cost of the recall was roughly $6 million).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolife
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protandim#Voluntary_recall
So next time, don’t be flippant or act surprised when someone tells you that something bad happened after taking Protandim. And bear in mind that it’s foolhardy to ingest anything made by blatantly greedy manipulative liars.
Susan Wilmot said: “All three of his Doctor’s are noticing his improvement and are interested in Protandim.”
I’ll call BS on that, because Protandim has no known (or even conceivable) effects on any of the symptoms you described, and you’ve provided nothing in the way of evidence, but you can always give us the doctors names and contact info if you want your claim to be given even a speck of consideration. Doctors who discover legitimate new treatments are always more than eager to discuss their findings. Otherwise your testimonial comes across simply as the work of a shifty con artist trying to fleece people by using vapid hearsay in violation of US law.
Susan Wilmot said: “So don’t be too quick to write Protandim off as a worthless money making scam. Don’t be so arrogant as to accuse Dr McCord for selling out because he enthusiastically backs this product. If you’re considering taking Protandim, (and there really is no good reason not to,) give it time to activate your body’s production of anti oxidants. Invest $300 in a six month supply, take it faithfully everyday and then let us know how you’re feeling.”
I wasn’t quick to write Protandim off as a worthless money making scam. I only did so after painstaking research, which enabled me to expose the company’s appalling dishonesty. It’s not arrogant to say that McCord sold out when he did in fact sell out – for millions; it’s simply a statement of fact. He doesn’t simply back the product; he is (or was) a company executive and an insider shareholder with a multi-million dollar stake in the company. There are dozens of good reasons to not take Protandim – it doesn’’t do anything, it’s stupidly expensive, it’s window dressing for a pyramid scheme, and it supports liars and thieves.
That $300 “experiment” that you’re encouraging people to undertake would work out pretty well for the company and people like you who sell it, but it would be a colossal waste of money for the experimenter, especially given that there are scads of other cookie-cutter snakeoil MLMs in Utah that are all trying to part suckers from their hard earned money using similarly deceptive and unsubstantiated claims. At $300 a pop, people would quickly go broke testing all these scam products. It’s a really pathetic sales pitch – “I have no evidence that the product does anything beneficial, but give me $300 anyway”. How embarrassing for you.
My, my, Vogel, what an angry dude you are. You ought not enjoy being such a bully.
I commented on the activity created when Nrf2 activates one’s survival genes. The resulting transcription of various enzymatic and non-enzymatic molecules as well as other proteins that together work principally as anti-oxidants and anti-inflammatants.
During aging and illness the activity of antioxidant enzymes, e.g. SOD, CAT, GSH-Px, and GSSG-R, depends on factors such as race, gender, tissue and subcellular localization of enzymes. For some reason this well-recognized activity of the human body (and all plants and animals) is not known to you and you want me to “prove” it to you!? Should I also prove the earth is round? A good medical textbook or a quick review of various medical journals will bring you up to date on what I commented to Susan.
Neither did Susan nor I claim that Protandim did treat any disease. Her statements are defined by the FDA as structure/function statements, which are, to quote the FDA: “Statements that describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans or that characterize the documented mechanism by which a nutrient or dietary ingredient acts to maintain such structure or function, provided that such statements are not disease claims.”
For someone who loves to threaten people with the FDA, you should know that. Furthermore, she did not even make those statements in the context of a sales presentation or acting as a legal agent of any company, so she is well covered by her free-speech rights. I don’t even think she was addressing you, by the way. I certainly was not; but I am now.
I don’t doubt that her partner’s doctors are “noticing his improvement and are interested in Protandim.” Liver related diseases don’t ordinarily respond to oxidative stress in the same way as the rest of the body, as born out by a very recent (2014) study. Also, the liver has been found to be highly reactive to metal nano-particles that are being increasingly used in various products, including creams and makeup. The net effect is an increase in abnormal livers for which the basis is less certain. What doctor wouldn’t be interested any time they see a patient improve for no reason due to their efforts?
However, Protandim is not intended to diagnose, mitigate, treat, cure, or prevent disease. It’s purpose is to maintain the normal healthy state of the body by keeping the prooxidant and antioxidant levels in balance. (see above FDA structure/function quote) When I add supplements to my diet, or exercise more, I am doing the things my body needs to maintain health. As one ages the requirement to do more to maintain health increases, but getting old is not a disease…nor should we let things get to the point of a disease if we can do anything about it. At least any sane person would do so.
Ronaldmckenzie said: “My, my, Vogel, what an angry dude you are. You ought not enjoy being such a bully.”
It’s not bullying to call out someone for shilling Protandim; it’s a civic duty. It is distributors like, you and Susan, and the LifeVantage organization that are out to exploit people by using a litany of false, misleading, and illegal claims. When people make such claims here, they rightly get called out for it.
Ronaldmckenzie said: “I commented on the activity created when Nrf2 activates one’s survival genes…various enzymatic and non-enzymatic molecules as well as other proteins…the activity of antioxidant enzymes, e.g. SOD, CAT, GSH-Px, and GSSG-R, depends on factors such as race, gender, tissue and subcellular localization of enzymes. For some reason this well-recognized activity of the human body (and all plants and animals) is not known to you and you want me to “prove” it to you!? Should I also prove the earth is round?”
That word salad you posted about NRF2 and antioxidant enzymes was completely off-topic and lacking in substance. I never asked you to prove anything remotely connected with what you described. I called you out for being dismissive when Phil described how he developed high cholesterol while taking Protandim. I pointed out that distributors like you are quick to dismiss such anecdotal reports and the possibility of Protandim having adverse effects (which NRF2 activators have demonstrated in clinical studies), but when someone anecdotally reports a positive result, you immediately accept it as evidence of Protandim’s efficacy.
I suggested that you all make an attempt to learn more about the logical fallacies that apply in such cases, such as confusing correlation for causality, ignoring regression to the mean, spontaneous resolution, placebo effects, observer bias, etc. That’s science; what you posted was nonsense. You changed the subject, blurted out some biochemical terms that you don’t even remotely understand, and then closed with that erroneous question about proving the Earth is round.
Ronaldmckenzie said:: “Neither did Susan nor I claim that Protandim did treat any disease. Her statements are defined by the FDA as structure/function statements…”
This is what Susan in fact claimed:
Susan said: “I want to share the experience my partner Steve is having with six months and counting on Protandim. He suffers from the rare unenviable genetic condition of Alpha One Anti-Trypsin Deficiency, level ZZ. His liver does not release the trypsin enzyme…what’s happening with Steve is truly nothing short of astounding… All three of his Doctor’s are noticing his improvement and are interested in Protandim.”
Susan claimed that doctors noticed improvement in her husband’s condition (A1AT deficiency, which she wrongly described as an inability to produce trypsin) after taking Protandim. That’s not a structure-function claim. It is an illegal disease treatment claim that clearly implies medical benefits of the product. In addition, the claim is worthless because it’s unverifiable. I rightly challenged the claim and asked Susan to provide evidence; a perfectly reasonable request. She has provided none.
I also have remarked several times about how distributors are violating company policy with these illegal curative therapeutic claims, and how they are also violating the policy that requires them to disclose their name and distributor ID# when participating in online forums, which is a stipulation of the legally-binding contract that all distributors are obligated to obey. It speaks volumes that distributors like you, Susan, and Greg (who appear to be in collusion and could in fact all be the same person) fail to honor the terms of that contract, in addition to violating US laws regulating supplement marketing.
Ronaldmckenzie said: “Furthermore, she did not even make those statements in the context of a sales presentation or acting as a legal agent of any company, so she is well covered by her free-speech rights.”
Whatever gave you that deluded idea? She’s a Protandim distributor talking about (and promoting) the product in a public forum; that is not constitutionally protected free speech and it is in fact subject to US laws regulating the advertising of dietary supplements. How you could not know that shows that you either are ignorant of the relevant federal statutes or you know that these claims are in violation and are trying to sweep them under the rug so as to avoid culpability (i.e., hoping that no one will report you and LifeVantage to the FDA for these violations).
Ronaldmckenzie said: “I don’t doubt that her partner’s doctors are ‘noticing his improvement and are interested in Protandim.’ Liver related diseases don’t ordinarily respond to oxidative stress in the same way as the rest of the body…”
ROFL. After denying that Susan was making a disease treatment claim, you then double down and support her disease treatment claim. How you don’t choke on your own hypocrisy is astounding.
I won’t get mad at you for posting such a pile of BS Ron, but I will get even for having my time wasted in having to respond to you, and I’ll fulfill my civic duty at the same time. From now on, every time you, Susan, or Greg posts something misleading or even just obnoxious, I’ll submit 3 well-warranted complaints to the FDA, using their online complaint system, exposing examples of illegal Protandim advertising that I’ve found on the internet and identifying the offending distributor so that remedial action can be taken. I have found literally hundreds of examples, so you can keep me quite busy with this task if you continue spouting BS at the present rate. You’ll probably reply back that you don’t care, but we both know it would be a lie.
http://www.fda.gov/safety/reportaproblem/ucm059315.htm
I’ll also ask you, Susan, and Greg once again why it is that you are willfully violating the terms of your legally-binding contract with LifeVantage by not disclosing your name and distributor ID, as required when participating in online forums such as these. It’s a rhetorical question really because we all know why you’re doing this on the sly instead of honoring your contract – shame and deviousness. It’s one more example in a long list of blatant transgressions.
If you are right, Mr Vogel, and Protandim offers nothing of value, then over the course of time the enthusiasm people are showing and sharing in regards to their experience with the product will just fade away. It will become just another health fad that has come and gone like so many other remedies.
If on the other hand people and their pets taking this product find that the health benefits received is well worth the money, and as they share this information with others, then the list of people who take Protandim will continue to grow exponentially. And with what I’ve seen in the dozens of people I know personally who are on the product, I’m betting on the later. Protandim is a populous movement. People are sick, tired, burned out. Medical costs are absurdly expensive and often the proposed cure is far worse than the cause.
If it’s true that by taking one tablet a day your health and energy levels are elevated then people desperately need and very much want this option. 80% of all people who take Protandim are not distributors. They don’t sell it or receive commissions. They want it for the benefits received and are willing to pay for it every month. And even though in this case there’s no monetary incentive, people still tell friends and family about Protanidim because it’s effective. It’s human nature to share products that work. That is the business model of Lifevantage and there’s no sign of Lifevantage petering out.
On the contrary the company is showing unprecedented growth (I hear your teeth gnashing!) with much more anticipated. I’m thinking you’ve got your work cut out for you if you feel it’s your civic duty to put this fire out.
You’re obviously intelligent and well educated. At the same time you feel free to call me and anyone who relays a positive response to the product a liar and cheat. You’re certain that the long list of practicing and retired MD’s, Osteopaths, Chiropractors, Massage Therapists, and others who are genuinely interested in the health and well being of others, who also sell Protandim, are completely unethical and only in it for a scamming buck.
I’m just curious if you’ve ever admitted to being wrong about anything in your life. I’m not aware of anyone sustaining long term side affects ingesting this herbal supplement. My friend who introduced me to Protandim is in her 70’s and has been taking it for four years. She looks and feels just amazingly great. But there’s definitely a few people who try it and are unimpressed. Time is the true marker and will reveal whether the health benefits from Protandim are fact or fiction.
Susan Wilmot
941616
Susan Wilmot said: “If you are right, Mr Vogel, and Protandim offers nothing of value…”
What do you mean “if”? The second clinical trial showed that Protandim offers nothing of value. The company has failed to demonstrate that the product offers any health benefits whatsoever. That’s reality.
Susan Wilmot said: “…then over the course of time the enthusiasm people are showing and sharing in regards to their experience with the product will just fade away. It will become just another health fad that has come and gone like so many other remedies.”
Yes, that’s a predictable outcome. Eventually those enthusiastic distributors who were telling tall tales about Protandim will stop doing so and the product will be relegated to the scrapheap of bad ideas, like so many other worthless MLM snakeoil products from Utah.
Susan Wilmot said: “If on the other hand people and their pets taking this product find that the health benefits received is well worth the money…”
What health benefits? It has none that we know of.
Susan Wilmot said: “…and as they share this information with others, then the list of people who take Protandim will continue to grow exponentially.”
Ha! Have you looked at the attrition rates? They lose roughly 50% of customers and distributors every 3 months –roughly a 95% annual turnover rate. That’s not exponential growth; it’s exponential collapse. There aren’t enough suckers in the world to keep LifeVantage afloat indefinitely, even though they’ll move around the world trying to keep the scam running for as long as they can – the pop and drop strategy.
http://www.protandimscams.com/lifevantage-reveals-how-terrible-the-business-opportunity-is/
Susan Wilmot said: “And with what I’ve seen in the dozens of people I know personally who are on the product, I’m betting on the later.”
If you like betting you should buy lottery tickets or play roulette in Vegas because the odds of a payoff are much better.
Susan Wilmot said: “Protandim is a populous movement. People are sick, tired, burned out. Medical costs are absurdly expensive and often the proposed cure is far worse than the cause.”
Ah yes, so “populous” that half the customers and distributors quit every 3 months. Protandim is a snakeoil pyramid scam with cult overtones, bit one thing it’s not is a “populous movement.”
You also seem to be saying, in a roundabout way, that Protandim can offset medical costs, which is not only a foolish and unfounded suggestion, it’s illegal to imply that Protandim can substitute for medicine.
Susan Wilmot said: “If it’s true that by taking one tablet a day your health and energy levels are elevated…”
Except that it’s not true. There’s no evidence or legitimate reason to believe that Protandim can impact health or energy levels.
Susan Wilmot said: “80% of all people who take Protandim are not distributors. They don’t sell it or receive commissions.”
The company doesn’t present reliable to data to back up that assertion. A more important parameter than the number of people who buy the product is where the revenue is derived from. The obvious question to ask is what percentage of revenue comes from people who are or who become distributors and what percentage is from those who can be strictly defined as retail customers. That’s a question that LifeVantage has been unable or unwilling to answer. Ultimately though, these details have no bearing on the efficacy of the product, or more accurately the lack thereof.
Susan Wilmot said: “They want it for the benefits received and are willing to pay for it every month.”
What benefits? There are none that we know of. You don’t know why people buy the product because that is information which the company does not provide and really has no way of knowing. In all likelihood, most people buy it to maintain commission eligibility.
Susan Wilmot said: “And even though in this case there’s no monetary incentive, people still tell friends and family about Protandiim because it’s effective. It’s human nature to share products that work.”
Just as there is no evidence that the product is effective for anything, there is also no evidence that people are spreading the LifeVantage gospel in the absence of a financial incentive. You’re certainly not doing it in the absence of a financial incentive. In fact, you’re so incentivized that you were willing to break the law by promoting the product as a medicinal agent; to violate the terms of your contract; and to hide you financial interest in violation of FTC regulations.
Susan Wilmot said: You’re obviously intelligent and well educated. At the same time you feel free to call me and anyone who relays a positive response to the product a liar and cheat.
Yup! If I called you or anyone else a liar and a cheat, or implied it, it was for good reason. Misleading people, misrepresenting the product, and violating the law warrants exactly that kind of response.
Susan Wilmot said: “You’re certain that the long list of practicing and retired MD’s, Osteopaths, Chiropractors, Massage Therapists, and others who are genuinely interested in the health and well being of others, who also sell Protandim, are completely unethical and only in it for a scamming buck.”
In a word, yes. But what long list are you referring to? LifeVantage has not publicly released any such list. There is ample evidence that the type of distributors you mentioned (i.e., consisting mostly of chiroquacktors and masseuses rather than MDs) are completely unethical and scamming to make a buck. They’ve been caught lying and breaking the law so many times I’ve lost count. Shall we start putting together that list? The one that details the number of so-called health professionals (quacks and hacks) who have lied, misrepresented the product, and violated federal regulations? Such a list would actually be helpful because it would make my latest project of reporting violators to the FDA and FTC so much easier. Why don’t you do your civic duty help me out with that?
http://www.fda.gov/safety/reportaproblem/ucm059315.htm
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/#crnt&panel1-1
Susan Wilmot said: “I’m just curious if you’ve ever admitted to being wrong about anything in your life. I’m not aware of anyone sustaining long term side affects ingesting this herbal supplement.”
First, asking something that vapid shows that your curiosity is misdirected. Second, how could you possibly be aware of anyone sustaining long-term side effects from ingesting Protandim when you’re not privy to such data? Neither you nor the company has conducted any legitimate safety testing, long-term or otherwise. You’re not privy to adverse event reports received by the FDA or the company, and you certainly have no way of knowing about side effects that people fail to report. We’ve seen that when ronaldmckenzie was confronted with someone claiming a potential side effect from Protandim (high cholesterol), he dismissed it out of hand. In other words, you cannot find what you don’t look for, and you certainly won’t find it by burying your head in the sand.
Bear in mind that anything capable of producing a therapeutic effect (which you claim Protandim is capable of doing, but we know that’s untrue) is also capable of producing side effects; that was certainly the case in clinical trials of compounds that activate NRF2, like Oltipraz and Tecfidera.
Lastly, the company can’t even manufacture a reliable product. They had to recall a quarter of a million bottles of Protandim (at a cost of $6 million) because of contamination with metal shards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protandim#Voluntary_recall
Susan Wilmot said: “My friend who introduced me to Protandim is in her 70′s and has been taking it for four years. She looks and feels just amazingly great.”
Is that your latest bogus efficacy claim about Protandim now – that it will makes someone feel “amazingly great”? Good luck with that. At least it’s more palatable than telling people it alleviates A1AT deficiency, like you did.
Susan Wilmot said: “But there’s definitely a few people who try it and are unimpressed.”
Yeah? How many? You’d think that a detail like that would be sort of important to track. The last clinical trial (of the 2 to date) showed that the product performed worse than a placebo. That’s unimpressive alright.
Susan Wilmot said: “Time is the true marker and will reveal whether the health benefits from Protandim are fact or fiction.”
You’re out of time. The notion that Protandim has health benefits is clearly fictional. Nonetheless, you and others are claiming that it has health benefits before there’s any evidence that such a claim is valid. That’s backasswards. Get the evidence first, then make claims based on what the evidence supports.
Susan, don’t waste your time with Vogel. He has already made up his mind, and no amount of evidence or testimony will change it. All he knows how to do is call everyone who likes Protandim fools and liars, and he keeps dragging up that one incomplete study, while ignoring (or bad-mouthing) all the other positive ones.
Greg, it is clear to anyone reading through the comments, that it is YOU who steadfastly ignores evidence. It’s comical at this point.
Greg B said: “Susan, don’t waste your time with Vogel.”
What you should have said is stop wasting Vogel’s time. It wouldn’t be a waste if Susan actually put some facts/evidence on the table, but she refuses to do so.
The reality is that just by responding to me both you and Susan are in violation of your distributor contract. I already pointed this out, so you know it’s a fact, but you ignore your contractual obligations anyway. Let me refresh your memory:
“8.5.8 – Responding to Negative Online Posts: LifeVantage Independent Distributors should not converse with one who places a negative post against them, other LifeVantage Independent Distributors or LifeVantage. They should report negative posts to the Company at compliance@lifevantage.com. Responding to such negative posts simply fuels a discussion with someone carrying a grudge that does not hold themselves to the same high standards as LifeVantage, and therefore damages the reputation and goodwill of LifeVantage.”
http://www.lifevantage.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/US-Policies-Procedures-LINKED.pdf
So there you have it. According to your legally-binding contract, you should shut up and report my posts to compliance. What they’ll do is a mystery. My guess would be nothing. Most likely the policy exists so that distributors like you and Susan won’t ‘step in it’, so to speak, and make things even worse for the company, which you have both done in spades since you started posting here.
Greg B said: “He has already made up his mind, and no amount of evidence or testimony will change it.”
Well I certainly won’t change my mind when the amount of evidence you present in rebuttal is a big fat zero.
You’re not legally allowed to use anonymous testimonials for advertising the product and the company doesn’t stand behind them, so why should I be moved by them? It’s all you’ve got.
Greg B said: “All he knows how to do is call everyone who likes Protandim fools and liars…”
Well that and crushing you under a mountain of solid evidence showing that the product is worthless and that the advertising claims are false and misleading. The solution to your dilemma is to stop lying and acting like a fool; then you’ll be immune to criticism.
Greg B said: “…and he keeps dragging up that one incomplete study, while ignoring (or bad-mouthing) all the other positive ones.”
And you wonder why someone might call you a liar and a fool??? Oh boy, now I have to rake you over the coals again for uttering that line of misleading BS – you even know it’s BS!
I’ll start by exposing your hypocrisy. You and the company keep touting the unassailable validity of all of the company’s research; i.e.:
(1) the illustriousness and integrity of the researchers and institutions involved in studying Protandim;
(2) the ‘impeccable reputation’ of Joe McCord;
(3) the unimpeachability of anything that is (a) published in a scientific journal, (b) listed on PubMed, and (c) funded using NIH grants.
However, the study you’re referring as “incomplete” was one that LifeVantage initiated:
Burnham EL, McCord JM, Bose S, Brown LA, House R, Moss M, Gaydos J. Protandim does not influence alveolar epithelial permeability or intrapulmonary oxidative stress in human subjects with alcohol use disorders. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2012;302(7):L688-99.
http://ajplung.physiology.org/content/ajplung/302/7/L688.full.pdf
(1) the work was authored by researchers from U Colorado, the same institution that authored almost all of the other Protandim research;
(2) McCord conducted the experiments, interpreted the results, and wrote, edited, revised, and approved the manuscript;
(3) the study was (a) published in an excellent journal (American Journal of Physiology), (b) is listed on PubMed, and (c) was funded by NIH grants.
Clearly, the 2006 study was vastly inferior to the 2012 clinical study In every respect.
You simply can’t have it both ways Greg. Everything you said in praise of the other Protandim studies applies even more so to this study, and if you damn this study as unreliable, you must do so even more so with the rest of the studies.
Moving on, let’s look at where this study fits into the context of the Protandim research as a whole. This is one of only 2 human (i.e., clinical) studies ever conducted on Protandim (the rest were all preclinical experiments conducted in test tubes/rodent models). The only other clinical study, published in 2006:
Nelson SK, Bose SK, Grunwald GK, Myhill P, McCord JM. The induction of human superoxide dismutase and catalase in vivo: a fundamentally new approach to antioxidant therapy. Free Radic Biol Med. 2006 Jan 15;40(2):341-7.
http://www.docmarvin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2006Study.pdf
(1) was poorly designed (non-randomized, non-blinded, and uncontrolled), unlike the 2012 study, which was well-designed (i.e., randomized, double-bind, placebo controlled)
(2) was published in a much lesser lower impact journal (i.e., Free Radicals in Biology and Medicine, a journal for which McCord served as an editor);
(3) was funded by LifeVantage and featured all LifeVantage (DBA Lifeline Therapeutics at the time) insiders/executives/shareholders as the principal authors;
(4) suffered from an atypically high subject dropout rate that rendered the results completely unreliable (i.e., since the dropouts were not adjusted for in the statistical analysis using methods like per-protocol analysis or intent-to-treat analysis with last observation carried forward [LOCF]);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_clinical_trials
(5) measured only a single parameter of oxidative stress, TBARS, which happens to be outdated and highly prone to error;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9736317
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FBJN%2FBJN99_E-S1%2FS0007114508965752a.pdf&code=29ef3bd84be9eab85695a37a3d8fa71f
(6) featured company investors and board members (e.g., Steve Osello, Reed Madison, and Leigh Severance) as research subjects.
http://www.protandimscams.com/lifevantage-company-insiders-investors-human-trial/
Now, there’s just one more plank in your argument to dismantle — the accusation that the study was “incomplete”. That charge is worthy of especially harsh recrimination because I already explained to you exactly why that claim was false (June 30, 2014 at 4:50 pm) and yet you are still repeating it.
LifeVantage has issued no formal retraction of the study, which would be expected if, despite being incomplete, it somehow snuck through the peer review process; nor have they made any public statement of any kind in which they deprecate the results of the study.
My guess is that they are saying this on the sly behind close doors, because, let’s face it, they have to say something when they have the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads in the form of a well designed study that attests to the inefficacy of the product and the illegitimacy of their core marketing claims.
The angle that the LifeVantage/distributors seem to be using to discount the 2012 clinical study is that it wasn’t long enough in duration (i.e., only 7 days).
But as I already pointed out, and you know full well, McCord himself stated in the 2006 paper that the peak effect of Protandim on TBARS/oxidative stress occurs in 5-12 days. The article stated:
““Fig. 3 shows that the response of plasma TBARS is fairly rapid, with most of the change having occurred by 5 to 12 days.”
So clearly the fact that the study was 7-days in duration does not qualify it as incomplete. The timeframe selected for the study seems to have been perfectly reasonable. But let’s pretend for the sake of argument that it wasn’t. McCord/LifeVantage were involved in virtually aspect of this study, so if the 7-day timeframe was too short, why did they allow the study to proceed when they would have know a priori that it was “incomplete”. To have done so would have demonstrated incompetence; it would have been an abuse of the subjects who participated in the study; and it would have been a colossal waste of money, which they would not be able to defend to shareholders.
So there you have it Greg. You have been hoisted by your own petard. Your argument that the study is incomplete has no validity whatsoever. You’re still lying; still violating the terms of your distributor contract; still violating FTC regulations; still abandoning logic and commonsense; and still promoting a snakeoil pyramid scheme .
And for that, you just earned 3 new complaints to the FTC and FDA against your fellow distributors. Keep it up G!
http://www.fda.gov/safety/reportaproblem/ucm059315.htm
https://econsumer.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/
Susan I have both RA and Osto arthritis I took it for a few months and felt absolutely nothing, zero, nada. My sister who is a high on the pyramid distributor said I would probably be able to stop taking my meds or reduce them drastically.
I am very sensitive to changes in my energy level and symptoms, very very sensitive. I am one of the groups that Protandim targets, it does nothing at all.
Hi Susan — So happy to hear you and Steve are experiencing such good results. All of the things you mentioned are part of what begins when your survival genes are activated. Once that happens, it does take a while for a body to begin rebuilding itself and a good diet will give your body what it needs to rebuild, however a body unable to deal with ROS is unlikely to ever do well.
I deal in micronutrients for plants grown by commercial organic farmers. We have included a similar activator within our product and it’s amazing what results our customers see. Unlike with humans it’s easy to measure the results…all our customers have to do is measure their harvest yields. Oxidative stress is a common problem to both plants and animals, but with plants it’s much easier to asses with each harvest.
This site, with the owner’s priggish attitude, is not doing the best it is able to do informing in a strictly neutral way, as it purports to be doing. Certainly, there are distributors making claims that they shouldn’t, and the manufacturer is not blameless in how it operates. However the product does improve TBARS like nothing else out there, and it’s less costly then some brands of good quality vitamins or a diet high in anti-oxidants.
But I’ve walked the test fields and my customer’s fields and seen the resultant differences between a healthy stand of corn compared to the untreated field beside it. A healthy crop shrugs off all but the worst stresses and a crop that has not had it’s survival genes activated will yield less, even in a good year.
I started taking Protandim as a customer before becoming a distributor. Being in my 70s, and pretty healthy, I stand to gain the most from having the TBARS of a much younger man, and I know I want to not be completely vulnerable to the whims of life that may deliver some unexpected stress to my body. So I feed it the same as I would a cash crop and hope to equally thrive.
Ronald, really? You are calling me names? Am I really “priggish” (self-righteous, narrow-minded and moralistic) by showing people the protandim studies – something BTW I’ve never seen on ANY website run by protandim distributor (What’s up with that?).
Since Protandim is primarily marked because of its science, I dont think I’m being narrow-minded by staying on target with those studies -and what they really say and dont say. I think if anything, I’ve been patient and accepting of people with diverging ideas about Protandim.
That’s not being priggish, its keeping with my worldview and training. Just show me good proof – better than what is currently out there – and we can discuss it. Ive always been open to this. I’m not close-minded but, if I can be a tad self-righteous for a moment, I’ve never called anyone here a name either.
Ronaldmckenzie said: “Hi Susan — So happy to hear you and Steve are experiencing such good results. All of the things you mentioned are part of what begins when your survival genes are activated.”
Really? You’re happy that Susan, a Protandim distributor/masseuse, is violating the law and the terms of her distributor contract by coming here and posting worthless unverifiable miracle-remedy testimonials on a Protandim critique site? And you, a fellow distributor not only condone it but applaud her for it? That’s pretty messed up.
I’d ask you to provide scientific validation for your statement that the “all of the things” Susan mentioned “are part of what begins when your survival genes are activated”, but we both know you can’t because it doesn’t exist. You’re just piling BS on top of BS. In fact, I’m getting so fed up with this latest onslaught of illegal testimonials from you Protandim shills that I’m compelled to file a batch of complaints with the FDA via their online reporting system, and I encourage others to follow suit. I will also bring this to the attention of the company to force their hand; either they take action and revoke your distributorships or they do nothing (as always) and prove to the FDA that they are complicit in the illegal marketing of their products (which we already know they are).
http://www.fda.gov/safety/reportaproblem/ucm059315.htm
Susan Wilmot said: “I want to share the experience my partner Steve is having with six months and counting on Protandim. He suffers from the rare unenviable genetic condition of Alpha One Anti-Trypsin Deficiency, level ZZ. His liver does not release the trypsin enzyme.”
You can’t even tell a lie without screwing up the details. Alpha-1-anti-trypsin (A1AT) deficiency is not a deficiency of trypsin but rather a deficiency of alpha-1-antitrypsin, the endogenous enzyme that inhibits trypsin.
There aren’t enough hours in the day to correct all your misinformation. Hopefully alerting the FDA to your violation of US law will muzzle you and protect the people who you seek to exploit.
I appreciate the dialogue around the network marketing concept as it relates to the church, and I appreciate Greg’s attempt to be sensitive to church relational issues, as well as his stated goal in raising funds for missions and such.
However, I must agree with his challengers that the whole approach he suggests seems underhanded and a bit dishonest, if not in intent, then definitely in practice.
If I were to go into marketing Protandim, which I am not, I would want to be very upfront and transparent with my congregation.
Also, I am very leery of getting the church involved in “for profit” business. I’ve been down that road before and it wasn’t pretty. Jesus himself challenged the moneylenders at the temple for making it a place of commerce, when it was meant to be a house of prayer.
The more research I’ve done on network marketing reveals that in its inception it was about getting a product out faster to more people, where now it has evolved into less about the product and more about building a “downline”, the product becomes a side issue, and recruiting moneymakers for your “upline” becomes the obsession.
I believe in funding missionaries and mission programs, but I think there are many better ways to do it than setting up a network marketing business for Protandim, or any other product.
Steve said: “Also, I am very leery of getting the church involved in ‘for profit’ business. I’ve been down that road before and it wasn’t pretty. Jesus himself challenged the moneylenders at the temple for making it a place of commerce, when it was meant to be a house of prayer.”
I couldn’t agree more, and I’ve often quoted Matthew 21:12 in reference to the unholy melding of church and MLM scams. It’s clearly antithetical the teachings of Jesus.
Steve said: “I believe in funding missionaries and mission programs, but I think there are many better ways to do it than setting up a network marketing business for Protandim, or any other product.”
Again, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Funding a good cause (missionary programs) through an unscrupulous venture like LifeVantage is the proverbial case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Michael,
My daddy can’t beat up anyone. But when distributors come along, and the patents (yes plural) claim that Protandim cures everything and anything from acne to HIV (yes Michael, that was listed in the first patent of the product) then they open themselves up to scrutiny.
Had they just been another MLM that puts out a product – without claiming that their product was “peer reviewed” and how those (suspect reviews) vindicated their product, then 1000’s or may 100,000’s would have just said “yes” and bought it and in over 30% of the cases the placebo effect would have prevailed and everyone would be happy. It’s their money, let them waste it (er um spend it) as they see fit.
But the fact of the matter is, not only did they make it special point of saying their product was peer reviewed (which opens them up to that scrutiny – that they hope no one will check on and just be overwhelmed by), but they also touted they had an Elliot Cressan (sp) award winner who was touted as the de facto inventor of Protandim (when in fact, he had nothing to do with inventing it). And it was done for the sake of money.
So Michael, you might wonder what the big deal is. The big deal is there are lots of folks out there who are tired of seeing MLM’s like Protandim and others making the claims they do and raking in the money they do and not being called on it. But Michael, if you want to waste your money – go right ahead. This blog probably isn’t for you since it is really concerned about providing some concrete evidence that Protandim works the way it is claimed it is proclaimed to work -with maybe only a minor (say 5%) placebo effect. But the world will never know………….until Protandim ante’s up to the table. They haven’t so far. They just keep on, “keeping on”. They keep on beguiling folks with their BS hoping that they won’t do any independent research because they think folks are too lazy. They are right………….unless other folks are here to call BS on their BS.
My daddy hoped I would be smart enough to be able to research and draw my own conclusions Michael. He hoped I wouldn’t have to call him in and to know when to either back down from a losing position (one where I was wrong). Michael, I don’t think I’m wrong in this. So go ahead with your ridicule. Myself and many others have down the research for you…..and we’ve queried the placebo effect for you and we’ve queried the effective of Protandim to be able to do what it claims to do…………since you and Protandim don’t really care about it. But other folks just might.
My daddy just beat your daddy.
Let’s recap Greg’s opinions about interpreting the published research on Protandim, aside from the 2 human clinical trials (which ultimately demonstrated that Protandim doesn’t work).
Greg B said: “Since all of the remaining studies are positive, the burden of proof remains with those who say Protandim does not work.”
“Sorry, but the results of peer-reviewed studies, published in reputable medical journals, and the endorsements of PhDs and MDs, mean more to me than the knee-jerk denials of anonymous, uncredentialed bloggers.”
“ALL of the studies are relevant, else they would not have been conducted and published. Rather than mindlessly dismissing them because they don’t meet some arbitrary standard of your own, why don’t you conduct more studies showing the ones already done were wrong? The ball’s in your court; you have to do more than just whine about the way it was served.”
“Because those studies have been published, they get the benefit of any doubt as to their scientific validity. It is up to those who say they are wrong, or bad science, to prove such with their own studies.”
Greg shows a complete lack of understanding about the burden of evidence and the rationale behind scientific research. From both a scientific and a legal perspective, the burden of proof rests with LifeVantage. It is illegal to:
(a) make explicit or implicit claims about prevention, treatment, cure or mitigation of disease and
(b) make any other product claims that are not adequately substantiated or do not apply to the typical consumer.
Using convoluted logic, Greg insists that that company’s in vitro and rodent studies demonstrate the efficacy of Protandim and support its marketing as a therapeutic/preventive agent.
Lisa keeps pointing out (using logic and high quality sources) that such studies do not qualify as valid evidence to support such claims, yet still, Greg clings to his original position that the validity of the studies is unimpeachable.
But when we look at what the research consultants say about their studies, we see that they acknowledge significant weaknesses, which Greg just can’t seem to grasp.
The following in reference to Quershi et al [The dietary supplement Protandim decreases plasma osteopontin and improves markers of oxidative stress in muscular dystrophy mdx mice. J Diet Suppl. 2010; 7(2):159-178] is an example:
“The authors acknowledged several limitations of the study and its findings, including its preliminary nature and the relatively short six-month duration of the study.”
http://www.parentprojectmd.org/site/DocServer/protandim-dmd-press-06212010.pdf?docID=9781
The biggest limitation was in fact that it wasn’t conducted in humans but in mice. Regardless, the authors acknowledge that the study was too short and the results only preliminary.
So the logical next step would be to conduct follow-up research, which is exactly what the authors concluded:
“Pharmacokinetic studies and long-term trials of Protandimin mdx mice and humans with DMD are required to determine its impact on DMD disease progression and survival.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2926985/pdf/nihms226268.pdf
Yet it’s been 4 years since 2010 study was published and LifeVantage had done no follow-up whatsoever. If Protandim held any promise, this wouldn’t be the case.
The company admits such obvious shortcomings in their research only occasionally, like in PRs to their investors, where the lies are a bit harder to sell.
But they’ve even been dishonest about this study in their SEC filings, where they said that the study was done at Harvard when in fact it was done by McCord’s group at his lab in Denver.
http://www.protandimscams.com/tag/harvard/
To make matters worse, distributors (like Marissa Hughes, ID# 158093, and Timothy J. Glover, ID#216769) are using this test tube study to sell Protandim, illegally, as a treatment for muscular dystrophy.
http://nrf2geneactivator.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/therapeutic-dmd/
http://thebodyandsoullifeline.com/physical-wellness/protandim/clinical-studies-peer-review/
Yes it is true you never have to prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with the assertion. Also my brother is an MD and a PHD and he thinks this whole scheme is a fraud or wishful thinking how ever you look at it….
“My daddy can beat up your daddy” How old are you people you sound like little kids. Leave your own opinions out of this. If it works for people then great it works for them. If it does not work then great for those people also.
How many people out there take US government approved prescription drugs that work for some people and not the others?
Why don’t you go argue with the FDA ( AKA big brother). In the above “argument” it is obvious that one person supporting the use of the product could have personal interests in the product.
My question to the person opposing the use is: What product do you support? Do you work for the FDA?
Have you somehow been negativity affected by this product. If non of these above questions apply then I ask Do you have a life?
You are very good at research and debate, so why don’t you channel that into a career choice like a lawyer?
Or perhaps you could tell us why you are against the fact that this product works for some people. Stop raining on their parade! The world is not flat!
Michael, I don’t know if you are directing your criticisms to me or not but I think its a good thing to have diverging points of view because it helps people make a more informed decision. I dont consider helping to answer peoples questions “raining on a parade.”
I dont know if I’d call the FDA “Big Brother.” For example, you can make stronger comparisons between big brother and Google (“Sky Net”) et al. than the FDA LOL.
Michael-
Not that anyone needs to defend the Vogel, as he is perfectly capable, but for anyone who follows Joe’s blog will know, Greg constantly makes the most transparently dishonest claims about protandim.
Now he has sunk to trying to have a pastor get his parishioners into his “downline” with the sleaziest of tactics…. what else would one expect from him?
This “product” may work for some people … even if thru a placebo affect, but dishonesty still needs to be called out for what it is….. and “watching” the beat down is hilarious!
BTW- my daddy can whup your daddy.
I’ve enjoyed reading through this blog. I have been approached by a new friend about becoming a distributor. The presentation was impressive, but as with most network marketing approaches, I am highly skeptical, even if the people involved have good intentions. Who doesn’t want to make a buck and promote good health? I’m a minister and have a couple of doctors in our church that I can bounce this off of as well, already shot one of them an email.
Joe, thanks for your research. Saved me a lot of time and looking up words in the dictionary. Also, I think I’m just as concerned about the ethics of network marketing as to how well the pill works or doesn’t work. At some point the million people at the bottom of the barrel pad the pockets of those higher up.
As a minister, I would be concerned about my testimony if I tried to get our church distributing under me, especially, when the product still needs much verification. I felt in reading your article, you were on a crusade against Protandim. Actually, as I read, I wasn’t sure where you would end landing on the subject. Again, thanks for posting this.
Steve, thanks I appreciate that!
now I get why they play towards Christians, it’s all about belief, trust and hope…..who wouldn’t believe a minister of course, plus religion is a belief system much like the pie in the sky Protandium promises… and a minister would be a natural for proselytizing about the product
Steve, if you do decide to become a distributor, for the sake of your ministry I would strongly suggest that you not market to your parishioners, but concentrate on people outside the church.
Some of your church people would not appreciate this coming from you, and causing divisions in your congregation is the last thing you want to do.
The thing to do is make it possible for your upline to market to your church people.
It would be better if your members did not even know you were involved until after they had become customers or distributors themselves.
But I am sure you know plenty of people outside your church to make this worth your time. In fact, it might be better to have your wife take the lead on this; Protandim is a great, but it should not take priority over your calling as a pastor.
Greg B said: “Some of your church people would not appreciate this coming from you, and causing divisions in your congregation is the last thing you want to do.”
No one outside the church is going to appreciate either. Why should his parishioners alone be exempt from the scam that would be inflicted on everyone else?
Greg B said: “The thing to do is make it possible for your upline to market to your church people.”
A typically dishonest and counterproductive suggestion. This is supposed to be about building a business right? We know it’s really not, but let’s go along with the thought exercise anyway.
Why would Steve give away business to someone else when it does nothing to build his own business? To curry favor? A quid pro quo arrangement? How incredibly disingenuous that would be to have an upliner ambush the parishioners in a stealth maneuver that Steve, directly or indirectly, would benefit from.
Steve would then also be competing with a whole new batch of distributors, newly minted by his upline, who he would be in competition with.
Greg B said: “It would be better if your members did not even know you were involved until after they had become customers or distributors themselves.”
More advice on how to be deceptive. Nice! Of course it would be better if people didn’t know. Being a Protandim distributor is a badge of shame. For example, you’re a distributor violating the terms of the LifeVantage contract which requires you to post your name and ID# when participating in online discussions like these.
Why would you risk blatantly violating this provision were it not for shame and the fear of being held accountable for the plethora of dishonest and downright stupid claims you’ve made here to date?
Greg B said: “But I am sure you know plenty of people outside your church to make this worth your time.”
Almost nobody knows enough people anywhere to make a Protandim distributorship worth the time, unless one’s time is worth well below minimum wage or has negative value.
Greg B said: “In fact, it might be better to have your wife take the lead on this; Protandim is a great, but it should not take priority over your calling as a pastor.”
Now you’re asking him to whore his wife out to LifeVantage on his behalf? Protandim is the antithesis of great and even a single minute devoted to it would be a disservice to the pastor and to the community he serves.
I also raised a big eyebrow at the suggestion of what Steve should do but didn’t want to be the first to condemn it.
Joe, my comments were from one distributor to another potential distributor, and from one Christian to another. Since you didn’t understand them, or the motives behind them, you have no place to be condemning them. I stand behind them 100%, and I am sure Steve, as a church leader, understands what I meant.
Greg, I’m no church leader but dont you think its a tad unethical to get Protandim distributors to infiltrate Steves congregation (not to mention his wife) to talk up Protandim, sign up new distributors, after which they learn the big secret, that Steve is behind the the whole thing?
I can run this by my brother, who is a minister, but I think he would say the same thing.
You use the term ‘infiltrating’ as if introducing people to Protandim is something negative, something about which to be ashamed. My concern is that Steve’s role as pastor not become confused with his role as a businessman, in the eyes of his parishioners.
If Steve himself was to present this to the people, some would feel an undue pressure to sign up because of the “he’s the pastor; he must know what he is doing” factor. This would be a abuse of his position.
The only reason anyone should take Protandim is because he thinks it will improve his health. Others may not think Protandim worth taking, and resent the fact that their pastor is pushing it. Others many become confused and think that taking Protandim is somehow tied in with their spiritual life. These are the reasons I think it unwise for Steve to be the one introducing Protandim to his congregation. A way must be found for someone outside of the church to do so.
Another possibility would be for the church itself, not just the pastor, to become the distributor, with the understanding that whatever profits made by the church go to fund church activities, the mission budget, pay off the church mortgage, etc. If any of the congregants want to also become distributors, they would have to market to those not in the church, so that all purchases made by church members would go to the church.
The reason I suggested that Steve’s wife take the lead on this is that, if Steve is like most pastors, his plate is already full with his ministerial duties, and he probably has little spare time for an outside business. His calling as the leader of the church must take priority.
Greg, I used the word “infiltrating” because that’s what it sounded like to me when you suggested that people in his upline introduce church members to Protandim. What if no church members sell protandim? would distributors start going to Steve’s church with the intention of selling Protandim? It just sounded a little icky the way it was worded.
As for the idea of the church entity itself becoming the distributor, that’s outside my scope of knowledge although my gut tells me its probably not a wise thing to do.
I think this whole thing is something Steve and his wife need to pray about before taking any actions.
I am categorically opposed to anyone joining Steve’s church for the purpose of selling anything! The idea is that the person who does this will call, write, e-mail the members saying that the prospect’s name was given to them as someone who may be interested in this, with the name-giver choosing to remain anonymous to avoid unduly influencing the prospect’s decision.
That the prospect is being approached because of his church membership need not be mentioned. Under my idea Steve would get no profit from whatever anyone in the church buys or earns, but since his task is to shepherd the flock, not fleece it, that is how is should be. Steve’s profits, and the profits of anyone else in the church who enrolls as a distributor, should come from people outside the church, because of the potential that this could disrupt the relationships among the members.
I am sensitive to this matter because I am not allowed, by decision of the church eldership, to market Protandim to my fellow church members. At first I resented this decision, but now I see the wisdom of it.
Greg said: “The idea is that the person who does this will call, write, e-mail the members saying that the prospect’s name was given to them as someone who may be interested in this, with the name-giver choosing to remain anonymous to avoid unduly influencing the prospect’s decision. That the prospect is being approached because of his church membership need not be mentioned.”
What you are saying is that Steve should covertly offer up his parishioners as prey for some other distributor to sell them Protandim. That would be a violation of his parishioners’ privacy and an abject abuse of professional ethics. You’re not gaining any ground with these suggestions, and you’re violating your distributor contract. Why do you continue to do this and fail to even acknowledge that it’s problematic?
OMG you guys do target Christians………………….and people totally buy your spill because you are
Greg B said: “You use the term ‘infiltrating’ as if introducing people to Protandim is something negative, something about which to be ashamed.”
We’ve outlined several dozen reasons why Protandim is “something negative”. Clearly, you are ashamed otherwise you wouldn’t be violating the terms of your distributor agreement with these deceptive anonymous posts plugging the product and the so-called ‘business opportunity’. In the more global sense, simply being a Protandim distributor is indeed a badge of shame.
Greg B said: “My concern is that Steve’s role as pastor not become confused with his role as a businessman, in the eyes of his parishioners. If Steve himself was to present this to the people, some would feel an undue pressure to sign up because of the ‘he’s the pastor; he must know what he is doing’ factor. This would be a abuse of his position.”
Of course it would be an abuse of his position, which is why he should stay away from LifeVantage. Having a friend, his wife, or his upline ambush the parishioners on his behalf would be no less an abuse of authority.
Greg B said: “The only reason anyone should take Protandim is because he thinks it will improve his health.”
On that basis, there’s no reason anyone should take Protandim because not a single iota of reliable evidence has ever been presented to indicate that it improves health in any way whatsoever.
Greg B said: “Others may not think Protandim worth taking, and resent the fact that their pastor is pushing it.”
Yes, that is in fact the typical response that can be expected from anyone to whom the product and business opportunity are pushed to. Resentment/alienation is the ever-present downside of being the promoter of a shifty snakeoil pyramid scheme.
Greg B said: “Another possibility would be for the church itself, not just the pastor, to become the distributor…”
That’s a deplorable suggestion. You would gladly have Steve sacrifice the sanctity of his church to front a snakeoil a pyramid scheme. I like you less and less with each of your suggestions for the pastor. They are the comments of a soulless predator.
Greg B said: “The reason I suggested that Steve’s wife take the lead on this is that, if Steve is like most pastors, his plate is already full with his ministerial duties, and he probably has little spare time for an outside business.”
Having his wife front the organization would be no less of an abuse of authority. It’s just more deceptive than if Steve were to do the devil’s work himself.
Greg B said: “Joe, my comments were from one distributor to another potential distributor, and from one Christian to another. Since you didn’t understand them, or the motives behind them, you have no place to be condemning them. I stand behind them 100%, and I am sure Steve, as a church leader, understands what I meant.”
Greg, I have already pointed out to you that you have been chronically violating LifeVantage’s policies and procedures and the terms of your distributor contract.
http://www.lifevantage.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/USA-policies-and-procedures-2013.11.pdf
Apparently, you need a reminder as to how you should comport yourself.
8.5.1 – “LifeVantage Independent Distributors must disclose their full names on all relevant social media profiles that relate to LifeVantage and its products or business, and each must conspicuously identify themselves as an ‘LifeVantage Independent Distributor.’ Anonymous postings or use of an alias is prohibited… at LifeVantage’s sole discretion…offending LifeVantage Independent Distributors will be subject to disciplinary action.”
8.5.3 – “…social media sites may, not be used as a direct medium for generating sales or explaining the LifeVantage income opportunity or product.”
8.5.3.3 – “…Independent Distributors may use the Internet, social networking sites, blogs, social media and applications, and other sites provided that it…does not contain any false or misleading information about LifeVantage, its products or business opportunities, and conforms to the other policies set forth herein…”
8.5.6 – “Professionalism: LifeVantage Independent Distributors must ensure that their postings are truthful and accurate. This requires that they fact-check all material they post online.”
8.5.8 – “Responding to Negative Online Posts: LifeVantage Independent Distributors should not converse with one who places a negative post against them, other LifeVantage Independent Distributors or LifeVantage. They should report negative posts to the Company at compliance@lifevantage.com.”
14.1 – Remedies: Any breach of the Agreement, including these Policies and Procedures, or any illegal, fraudulent, deceptive or unethical business conduct by an Independent Distributor may result, at LifeVantage’s discretion, in…cancellation of the Agreement… commencement of legal proceedings for monetary or equitable relief or both.”
So what should we conclude about a distributor who willfully violates all these terms of their legally binding contract? Greg is a renegade; a rogue who shirks his legal and professional obligations. But let’s be clear; Greg is not the only rogue in the LifeVantage organization – he represents the rule, not the exception. That’s because LifeVantage’s P&Ps are a joke; a means for the company to partially cover its ass by paying lip service to the letter of the law, but behind the scenes, distributors are coached to violate the rules with impunity, just like Greg has been doing here.
Greg is sending us a message loud and clear. His organization simply cannot be trusted.
You put the most negative spin on everything, don’t you? Do you have any friends? You must live a miserable life. I feel sorry for you.
PS–My comments were addressed to Steve, not you. You had no business commenting on them.
Greg, Im glad he did comment. I read your words with mixed emotions. Part of me was surprised and part of me was glad that you were honest enough to give me a glimpse into the thinking process of distributors.
Greg B said: “PS–My comments were addressed to Steve, not you. You had no business commenting on them.”
Since you posted those comments on a public discussion board, you had no reason to expect that I wouldn’t reply, especially given the devious nature of your ill-advised guidance to Steve. This isn’t your house Greg; it’s Joe’s, and as long as he has the welcome mat rolled out, I’ll comment whenever I choose to. Show some respect for your host and don’t try to dictate who can participate in the discussion.
The lack of human trials is insignificant, in that all messages are tested first in test tubes in living cells, then lab animals, then mice.
If you do your research, you’ll find that not all drugs put out by big pharma are tested on humans for years, and sometimes not at all until it hits the market, and then prescribed by a limited number of Dr’s, then after years r months of observation, they can see if there is any true benefit.
So, just because there is no human study at this point on every single disease out there that Protandim may potentially help, means absolutely nothing.
The only claim that Protandim makes is from the human clinical trials of reducing oxidative stress.
That’s a true and legitimate claim.
I’m sure we would all like to see a cure all come out on the market, but until God grants us that ability to obtain enough knowledge to accomplish that task, we’ll have to settle for the limited studies to see where they go.
Glen, human trials are insignificant? Honestly I dont even know where to start…
Glen said: “The lack of human trials is insignificant, in that all messages are tested first in test tubes in living cells, then lab animals, then mice.”
So what you’re saying seems to be that mice aren’t lab animals. That faux pas aside, the lack of human trials is very significant, as human trials are the only way to determine whether products are safe and effective. That’s simply where the bar for evidence has been set; it’s indisputable for a number of rather obvious reasons.
Furthermore, LifeVantage did not follow any logical sequence for clinical development. They began with a human clinical trial (a really bad one), and then digressed into a series of worthless in vitro and animal experiments, which basically showed that Protandim does biochemically what it would be expected to do by virtue of the fact that it contains curcumin and green tea extracts – these effects were known long before Protandim was conceived.
Eventually, one more clinical trial was published in 2012 (a well designed one), but it showed that Protandim had no effect on TBARS/oxidative stress.
So really, none of what you said has any validity. It borders on gibberish.
Glen said: “If you do your research, you’ll find that not all drugs put out by big pharma are tested on humans for years, and sometimes not at all until it hits the market, and then prescribed by a limited number of Dr’s, then after years r months of observation, they can see if there is any true benefit.”
Puh-lease! Don’t lecture me about doing research on how drug development works. I’ve forgotten more about the subject than you would ever know in 10 lifetimes. It’s a completely false assertion that the efficacy of drugs isn’t tested in humans until after they are marketed.
The FDA requires conclusive stage 3 clinical efficacy and safety data (i.e., large scale, well designed studies in human subjects) for all drugs prior to approval and commercial distribution (with perhaps a few rare exceptions for clone versions of existing approved drugs).
Glen said: “So, just because there is no human study at this point on every single disease out there that Protandim may potentially help, means absolutely nothing.”
What kind of twisted logic is that? It means absolutely everything. Your premise is to assume that everything should be considered to do anything until it’s proven not to? If I were to say that wrapping your head in tinfoil will keep you from getting brain cancer, the onus would be on you to come up with a clinical trial to prove me wrong?
Clearly, that kind of thinking is not consistent with the scientific method, or even the basics of logic.
Science and basic logic notwithstanding, from a legal standpoint alone, the onus is on LifeVantage to have sufficient substantiation for any claims they make about the typically-expected effects of their product. Because LifeVantage has not even made a preliminary attempt to provide such evidence to the FDA, it is illegal to even remotely intimate that Protandim can prevent or alleviate the effect of any disease.
As we all know, that law has been repeatedly violated by the LifeVantage organization, which is one of the many reasons why they should never be trusted. They shouldn’t even be allowed to stay in business.
Greg said: “The only claim that Protandim makes is from the human clinical trials of reducing oxidative stress. That’s a true and legitimate claim.”
Protandim is a product, and products themselves do not make claims; the people who sell them do, and the people who sell Protandim make a plethora of outlandish claims that go far beyond the simple one you mentioned about oxidative stress. However, even that claim is illegitimate — the results of the company’s first clinical trial (the poorly designed one) showing a 40% reduction in TBARS (which, incidentally, is an unreliable proxy measure of oxidative stress) were refuted by a subsequent (much better designed) clinical trial that showed the product had no effect whatsoever on TBARS.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16413416
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22268125
Greg said: “I’m sure we would all like to see a cure all come out on the market, but until God grants us that ability to obtain enough knowledge to accomplish that task, we’ll have to settle for the limited studies to see where they go.”
What exactly does that mean? Sounds like you’re saying that until a legitimate cure (for what you didn’t mention) comes along, we have to blindly believe that LifeVantage’s BS snakeoil pyramid scheme bait is a disease cure.
The gist of the limited human clinical studies on Protandim show that the product doesn’t lower oxidative stress. What other deluded beliefs can you possibly still be clinging to at this point?
Greg,
If you are so convinced about it all………..then why are you here? Let’s face some facts. You never present any evidence (other than word of mouth or the almost useless “peer reviewed” studies or what has been “mouthed” to you by your upline). You tell us that this doctor or that doctor has seen significant positive results in there “prescription” of Protandim – but there is no evidence to back it up.
That leads us all to think all these doctors are distributors (and many of them are, which skews their objectivity to no end). You ignore all other evidence that has been presented here without even blinking and eye and then you just ramble on and on about test tubes and mice and rat studies and how those studies are the “end all and be all” of all things related to Protandim. Jeez, I wish I was selling the snake oil of the month. I could get rich off of folks like you.
Scott…..good point. I’m beginning to think he’s just a troll and enjoys posting this stuff so he can sit back and watch us waste our time responding to him. It’s hard to believe he really doesn’t “get it.”
Not really a waste of time Lisa. We all know that the point isn’t to convince Greg B of anything, because he has shown himself to be impervious to logic — whether it’s due to stupidity or purposeful obfuscation isn’t clear (and doesn’t really matter, although I strongly suspect it’s the latter).
The back and forth with Greg B, with all his logical inconsistencies and floundering attempts at misinformation, vividly demonstrates to any reader of this thread what LifeVantage is really all about. Greg’s contributions here are damaging to the company’s already badly tarnished reputation and makes the task of selling Protandim more difficult for all distributors. That’s a good thing. Keep up the good fight
Scott…..good point. I’m beginning to think he’s just a troll and enjoys posting this stuff so he can sit back and watch us waste our time responding to him. It’s hard to believe he really doesn’t “get it.”
or …….he’s a distributor, he talks like my sister and her husband who only source of income is selling this stuff
Oh I’ve assumed from the start that he is a distributor. No one reaches that level of dedication, misinformation, and brainwashing without being fully indoctrinated.
For those of you interested, here is more information about Dr. Royal. What a piece of work he is:
http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/ReviewBoard.htm
http://www.protandimscams.com/dr-dan-royals-lifevantage-protandim-challenge-scam/
Lisa, thanks for that. I had no idea.
Wow! Dan Royal was denounced by his own mother. Check out the comments from Marie Royal on page 13.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090219065640/http://www.nvbhme.com/pdf/Minutes-12-April-2007.pdf
To recap, Greg wants us to give credence to this quack’s unpublished pseudo-research (which has since disappeared, as Dan Royal has attempted to distance himself from LifeVantage) to support some kind of vague claim about Protandim’s efficacy, the details of which he never mentioned, while ignoring a well designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study published in an excellent journal, which showed that Protandim was completely ineffective in doing anything.
Greg B’s floundering is getting to be downright comical, and yet at the same time it’s sad to see the depths to which dishonest con artists like him will stoop.
Greg,
Seriously?
Greg said:
Since all of the remaining studies are positive, the burden of proof remains with those who say Protandim does not work. In addition, there is the unpublished, informal (but not by that invalid) study conducted by Donny Osmond’s doctor, using several of his patients as subjects, which was very positive.
Greg……….really? The doctor of a (still) rich dude who stumps for Protandim? That’s the best you can come up with? Hmmm……….”unpublished, informal……..study”.
Greg, I have it from Bernie Madoff (personally) that if you trust me (because Bernie is my upline and he always steers me true. He tells me that you can own – outright own – a chunk of the Kamchatka Pennisula. It’s true! The U.S. has made a deal to finally own a chunk (25×25 sq miles) of it. Bernie says it is a “done deal”. Brad Pitt………….you know him – actor. He has a vested interest in it too. Kevin Bacon and his wife Kyra Sedgewick are on board too. Man, it is a once in a life time opportunity. They’ve established a small group of people (Bernie has the list) of trusted folks and they have told them to tell only some other folks to offset the cost of it all. Bernie told me to open it up to only 100 people (only because my market size was so small). But he added that if I found more people online………………the sky was the limit. We’d all be rich beyond our wildest dreams. Sure, some of the investors would fall by the way-side, but the core would go on because we believe in the dream.
Get the point Greg?? Bernie Madoff is real and yes, he did convince lots of folks (millionaires even) to “believe in the dream” all the while he was scamming them out of millions. Don’t know if Mr Pitt was one of them, but Mr Bacon and Ms Sedgewick were.
Sooooo, back to your query about burden of proof:
Who does the burden of proof lie with? With LifeVantage. So far, their history of lies over profit makes them circumspect beyond belief. The CEO (former, I believe) Mr Brown came from a discredited MLM. Dr. McCord had nothing to do with inventing Protandim – it was research of what certain herbal remedies might do in the human body by Myhill and Driscoll.
The Japanese took out one of the “sacred 5” ingredients and replaced it with something else. Did LifeVantage object? Heck no! They were about to open up a new market. Bernie Madoff would be proud!! Perhaps you should call him in what-ever state pen he is in.
Okay…………down to brass tack, if we weren’t already.. Protandim has 12 or so studies. Those studies are from mostly, mouse and rat models (that is to say that 10 out of the 12 are from the cells of mice and rats – so to speak. One of the human experimants was asuspended study and the other is skewed because it was of was too low of a number and it was performed on LifeVantage employee – or so I am led to believe). No conflict of interest there.
An independent study from UCLA that wasn’t looking into Protandim discovered that activating they Nfr2 protein might possibly lead to clogging of the arteries – at least it did with their “mouse studies”. Your team ignores that little bit of tid-bit Greg. And you obviously don’t care enough about it since it had been mentioned several time here. It didn’t have to be “peer reviewed” because they listed it as something they didn’t expect to find…………..and yet did find. And if their findings are ever peer reviewed, then their finding will be at the top of the list of peer reviews.because the didn’t stop when they achieved their goals of the study.
Steve,
The thing a peer review does is to make sure the “t’s” are crossed and the “i’s” are dotted. That is to say, the folks who are doing the review are making sure that those who did the study have seemed to follow the protocol laid down for scientific studies.
Those doing the peer review aren’t actuality going out and trying to duplicate the study or trial. They are reviewing the methodology that was used and seeing if the conclusions appear to match up with what was proposed.
Now let’s also talk about saying things with conviction Senator McCarthy……..er, um, Steve. Twelve or so mouse and rat model studies (with one or two studies with humans – one which was suspended and the other which I understand involved LifeVantage employees) do not 1000 make.
Nor do they (even peer reviewed) make them entirely viable for use for humans. They especially do not make them viable for humans since the “placebo effect” hasn’t effectively been taken into account because of the lack of studies on humans, which is one of the tenets this blog is about.
Steve,
Actually activating the NrF2 transcription, which is what reduces oxidative stress has been shown to PROMOTE artherosclerosis (sp), i.e. clogging of the arteries according to the researchers at UCLA.
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/nrf2_antioxidant_protein_also_promotes_clogging_arteries-75189
Scott M. How ’bout we wait for the study to be peer reviewed before we say something with conviction. All of you who want to cast doubt on Protandim and Nrf2 activtion continually fail to mention that Protandim and it’s claims has now had THOUSANDs or medical/scientic peer reviews without ONE yet disproving the science. This only happens to about 5% of ALL STUDIES. I like those odds!
Steve, not to rain on your parade, but there have not been thousands of studies about Protandim, only about a dozen or so published so far.
There have been over 100,000 studies on Oxidative Stress and its ill effects. Also, for some medical journals only about 5% of submitted studies pass the peer-review process and are published.
The only study so far to cast doubts on Protandim was a small, incomplete one that even Joe C (our blog host) admits doesn’t really count. All of the others have been positive.
But Greg if we toss that crapy study out it only leaves 1 human study. All the test tube and rat studies can’t prove protandim works.
Protandium cheer leaders tend to repackage old news and call it a new study if you google some of the “studies” you will find that either they don’t exist or that they reference back to the same old…….
Since all of the remaining studies are positive, the burden of proof remains with those who say Protandim does not work. In addition, there is the unpublished, informal (but not by that invalid) study conducted by Donny Osmond’s doctor, using several of his patients as subjects, which was very positive.
Also, what do you say about all the people and pets who have been greatly helped by Protandim? Are they all fooling themselves?
Joe, you are free to want to see more evidence before taking Protandim, but for me and about 200,000 others (so far) the evidence is sufficient, and we know what it is doing for us.
Greg, I just can’t accept any proof from Donny Osmond doctor. Neither should you.
Why not? Are you saying he is incapable of measuring the OS level of patients, having them take Protandim for some weeks, then measuring their OS level again?
Someone (either a current patient or someone else) had approached him about recommending Protandim to his patients. He conducted his own tests because he was sceptical of the claims being made for it.
His tests showed that Protandim actually did lower OS significantly.
That’s the type of doctor we should all want–one who checks out new ideas, and does not dismiss them out-of-hand because they are different from what he was taught in med school.
Too many doctors think the old ways to deal with anything is to either drug it, cut it, or nuke it.
It would have been better if to publish the study for the world to see. That way, if it really was so great, he’d have a better opportunity to help many more people. But he didn’t do that. Why? For a doctor not to do this makes no sense to me.
No Greg, the burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of the company trying to sell a few pennies worth of herbs for $1.50 a pill. It always has been, and always will be. They aren’t even close to prooving a health benefit from their product.
As we’ve pointed out to you, “all the remaining studies” are irrelevant. Your steadfast denial of that fact doesn’t change anything.
Sorry, but the results of peer-reviewed studies, published in reputable medical journals, and the endorsements of PhDs and MDs, mean more to me than the knee-jerk denials of anonymous, uncredentialed bloggers.
ALL of the studies are relevant, else they would not have been conducted and published. Rather than mindlessly dismissing them because they don’t meet some arbitrary standard of your own, why don’t you conduct more studies showing the ones already done were wrong?
The ball’s in your court; you have to do more than just whine about the way it was served.
Greg, I’m not anonymous and I’m not as smart as they are but I could do more meaningful research than those others did. Trust but verify.
“ALL of the studies are relevant, else they would not have been conducted and published. Rather than mindlessly dismissing them because they don’t meet some arbitrary standard of your own, why don’t you conduct more studies showing the ones already done were wrong?”
LOL…..arbitrary standard of my own??? I’ve pointed out SEVERAL times to you, these are NOT MY STANDARDS. I didn’t make them up. I’ve cut and pasted, more than once, the standards listed on PubMed. You ignore it every time and persist in your denial. It’s classic cult behavior.
If the studies did not meet the standards of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health they would not have appeared on pubmed. They would not have been published in reputable medical journals. Because those studies have been published, they get the benefit of any doubt as to their scientific validity. It is up to those who say they are wrong, or bad science, to prove such with their own studies.
Greg, that’s not exactly true. pub med unfortunately does list abstracts, which dont have to be peer reviewed. These are often listed with “supp” in the citation reference.
I went back and looked at what I wrote about the study done by Donny Osmonds doctor. you really should view that with skepticism Greg. he only let people in the “study” who could afford to pay for their tests and buy protandim. Also, as a doctor, he knows the value of peer review – but he didn’t appear to try to get it published. Why? I have to wonder, if protandim really was so great, was he not concerned with the welfare of others enough to spread the gospel to the masses via the accepted method of scientific info transmission (ie, go through the peer review process)?
Greg, if you were to have asked me about that type of “study”, I’d advise you to pass on it.
I can’t say for sure, not knowing the man, but I would guess that the doctor did not publish his findings because he never intended to. My understanding is that he conducted his study on an informal basis, to prove, or disprove, to himself the validity of the claims being made for Protandim.
As for only having persons in the study who could pay for their own tests and bottles. what does that matter? Are you saying that Protandim only works in people with money? I know you’re not, so what is your point?
As for your implication that he is not concerned about others, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Do you seriously think for a minute that he does not recommend Protandim to all of his patients who would benefit from it? Granted, this study is not hugely important, but it is another brick in the wall, and thus deserves mention.
Are you aware of any studies, formal or informal, which show that Protandim does not work (excluding, of course, the infamous 7-day study on the drunks).
I will stop taking Protandim when I see numerous studies showing that it either does not do what is claimed for it, or that what it does do is more harmful than good.
Greg, have you seen my interactions here with protandim distributors, who talk big until they think I’m serious and will actually test protandim on myself? That alone should be your proof that something is up.
By exculidging people who cant afford to pay for the testing (and protandim) you reduce the true randomness of of the people taking it. Also, if I remember right (I could be wrong), the “donny osmond doctor study” had no placebo group. What kind of a doctor does a test without a placebo group? That’s science 101.
Im not ashamed at myself at all. hes a DOCTOR. his mission in life is to help people. If he discovers something that can have a profound effect on the health of everybody, he should not just “save it” for his patent’s. he owes it to the world – and his profession – to share it.That means proving it to the scientific community.
Greg, its fascinating that you run away from the protandim study on drunks. Do protandim distributors bash that study in distributor meetings?
Greg, yes I AM aware of informal information that Protandim doesn’t work – the people who sell it. Those I originally encountered after I wrote myself were the biggest proof to me that it didn’t work.
1. they refused see the limitations of the studies
2. to test it myself I had to do test it where the distributor wanted me to
3. the distributor who would only talk to me privately on the phone to address my questions
Greg B said: “I can’t say for sure, not knowing the man, but I would guess that the doctor did not publish his findings because he never intended to.”
Why speculate? Why not stick to what is known rather than what you “guess”? If his faux “study” was legitimate and worthy of publication, it would have been published. By all appearances, it wasn’t even remotely publishable. All accounts of the study have been anecdotal and incomplete; there is no way to assess the methodology, design, results, or conclusions. It is little more than idle gossip.
Greg B said: “My understanding is that he conducted his study on an informal basis, to prove, or disprove, to himself the validity of the claims being made for Protandim.”
Which claims would those be? Royal’s alleged study looked at nutritional deficiencies using a Spectracell micronutrient test. The company has never claimed that the product can correct nutritional deficiencies. It seems that the sole purpose of this “study” was to to dupe his patients into paying out of pocket for an expensive yet worthless test with no recognized diagnostic value.
Greg B said: “Do you seriously think for a minute that he does not recommend Protandim to all of his patients who would benefit from it?”
Yes, I seriously think he doesn’t recommend Protandim. By all appearances he has severed his relationship with the company/product. The link to that alleged study on his website brings up a dead page, and he even went so far as to block robots from creating archived copies of the webpage. That shows how badly he wants to distance himself. Aside from that, Royal is a quack and not a bona fide researcher, so his opinion carries no weight.
http://royalmedicalclinic.com/LifeVantage.aspx
Greg B said: “Granted, this study is not hugely important, but it is another brick in the wall, and thus deserves mention.”
It’s not even remotely important. It’s not a brick; it’s a piece of dung, which is what LifeVantage’s so-called “wall” is made of. It is worthy of mention only to point out the lengths that LifeVantage and its accomplices will go to to deceive and fleece people.
Greg B said: “Are you aware of any studies, formal or informal, which show that Protandim does not work (excluding, of course, the infamous 7-day study on the drunks).”
How many studies showing that Protandim doesn’t work are needed? One is enough. It was a properly designed, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical study. The subjects were not drunks — they were abstinent individuals – nor is the study “infamous”, as much as you’d like to arbitrarily dismiss it, given how it shatters the core claims made by the company about the product lowering oxidative stress.
Greg B said: “I will stop taking Protandim when I see numerous studies showing that it either does not do what is claimed for it, or that what it does do is more harmful than good.”
No one gives a flying #%@& if you take Protandim or not. Take a bottle a day for all I care. This isn’t about you Greg, it’s about making sure that you and other LifeVantage con artists can’t inflict this scam on other people.
I also found evidence that the Spectracell micronutrient test, which served as the basis for Dan Royal’s unpublished alleged “study”, is not considered valid or useful by healthcare reimbursement agencies in the U.S.
https://www.bcbsal.org/providers/policies/final/378.pdf
The Spectracell techniques analyzes intracellular micronutrient levels in lymphocytes as a proxy measure of micronutrient levels in serum/tissues. However, in the document above, Blue Cross concludes the following:
“No studies were identified that evaluated the accuracy or clinical utility of intracellular
micronutrient testing compared to standard testing for vitamin or mineral levels. In addition, no
controlled studies were identified that evaluated the health impact of any potential clinical
application of intracellular micronutrient testing including diagnosing patients with generalized
symptoms or screening individuals for nutrient deficiencies. Limited data are available on
correlations between serum and intracellular micronutrient levels. Thus, due to the lack of
evidence that intracellular micronutrient testing improves the net health outcome, the technology
is considered investigational.”
Consider this information in addition to the fact that Royal was using the test as part of a silly scam to sell his patients Protandim and bilk them for administrative service fees.
http://static.protandimscams.com/documents/drDanRoyalScamInstructions.pdf
http://www.protandimscams.com/dr-dan-royals-lifevantage-protandim-challenge-scam/
Furthermore, the Protandim scam was so bad that even Royal abandoned it, as indicated by the fact that he has scrubbed all mention of Protandim and LifeVantage from his website and the link to his Protandim distributor is no longer active.
Why would Royal abandon his medical “miracle” treatment if it weren’t for the fact that it never worked to begin with? The saga of Dan Royal tells us that not only is Protandim not medicinal, it’s not even viable as snakeoil.
Greg B said: “If the studies did not meet the standards of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health they would not have appeared on pubmed. ”
That’s one of your more blatantly deceptive questions Greg. The only standard that exists for an article being listed in PubMed is that it must have been published in one of the 5,669 journals indexed in the PubMed database. The NIH and NLM don’t referee any of the content. PubMed is merely a repository, much like a library houses books — only PubMed is much larger with 23 million+ entries.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/num_titles.html
Don’t you ever get sick of swinging and missing? You’re up to about 97 consecutive strikeouts by now. Time to put down your bat and retire. Show some dignity.
Greg, You are completely missing the point about the studies. Regardless of whether the individual studies were done properly or not, the point is that you can not take rodent/test tube studies and jump to the conclusion that the results would apply to humans.
Again, this is NOT something that I just dreamed up. Here is what PubMed says on their site:
“About Clinical Effectiveness Research
Clinical effectiveness research finds answers to the question “What works?” in medical and health care.
“Working” is a real health benefit – like symptom relief, quicker recovery, or longer life. To find out if something really works, all important effects need to be studied. That means possible harms as well as possible benefits.
Clinical or health effects are sometimes called patient-relevant outcomes.
How do researchers get from an idea to proof of clinical effectiveness?
Ideas about what could work might come from laboratory tests. There might be animal testing. Studies observing patients also generate important knowledge and theories.
But all these types of research cannot provide definite proof that a particular treatment works. Many other factors could be having an impact at the same time as treatment. People often improve with or without treatment, too.
Putting ideas, theories, and beliefs to the test
Testing clinical effectiveness in people requires experiments that can single out the true effects of specific actions. That is why the possible effects of treatments and prevention methods need to be studied in clinical trials.
One trial is rarely enough to provide definite answers. Later trials sometimes confirm early results—and sometimes come up with conflicting results. So researchers search for, and then analyze, all the trials that have studied particular questions. This type of research is called a systematic review.
Definite answers and areas of uncertainty
Systematic reviews can show which treatments and prevention methods have been proven to work—and what remains unknown. Being clear about what is certain or uncertain is an important part of informed decision-making.
Systematic reviews are the basis for what is often called evidence-based medicine or health care. And they are important for pointing to areas where more research is needed.
Other names for this kind of research are “evidence syntheses”, “comparative effectiveness reviews”, and “health technology assessments”.”
End quote.
You can find that here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/aboutcer/
This has been posted before. PubMed has spelled out for you the type of research needed to draw a conclusion as to what works in humans. What more do you need?
What is your response to what PubMed says is needed to prove that something works? Are you going to dismiss it?
Greg B said: “Since all of the remaining studies are positive, the burden of proof remains with those who say Protandim does not work.”
Like Lisa said, the burden of proof has and always will be on LifeVantage. The only studies that matter are human clinical studies, and as you already know (but refuse to admit), the weight of evidence indicates that Protandim does not lower oxidative stress. There isn’t one iota of evidence indicating that Protandim has any medicinal benefits whatsoever.
Greg B: “In addition, there is the unpublished, informal (but not by that invalid) study conducted by Donny Osmond’s doctor, using several of his patients as subjects, which was very positive.”
Are you serious? You’re ignoring the published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial showing that Protandim does nothing and instead falling back on some “informal” alleged study, that’s unpublished, by Donny Osmond’s quack pal Dan Royal? You’re pretty quick to lower the bar when the evidence weights against. You’re desperate and grasping at straws.
That aside, Royal is no longer involved with LifeVantage — isn’t it odd that he would abandon this alleged “miracle” product right around the time that Osmond’s 2-year endorsement contract with LifeVantage expired?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/849146/000119312511309812/d241721dex101.htm
And, as I mentioned above, he’s a deplorable quack. http://www.stemcellpioneers.com/showthread.php?5161-Dr-Dan-Royal-makes-illegal-threats-according-to-university-professor
http://royalmedicalclinic.com/rbc-joint-therapy/services/
Greg B said: “Also, what do you say about all the people and pets who have been greatly helped by Protandim? Are they all fooling themselves?”
ROFL! What do you say to the flying purple unicorn I have in my garage? Let me see if I understand your question accurately. Are you asking why do some desperado distributors involved in this money-losing pyramid scheme resort to anonymously posting illegal miracle-cure fairy tales on the internet, which are against the law, alleging that Protandim had medicinal effects in their pet? Is that the angle you really want to explore – i.e., why do ignoramuses and remorseless liars resort to illegality and exploitation to further their own interests? Hmmm! It’s an interesting moral/ethical question but not really within the scope of what we’re talking about here.
LifeVantage makes no claims that their product has any medicinal effects whatsoever. They also include the required FDA disclaimer that their products are not intended to prevent, treat, cure or mitigate the symptoms of any medical condition. They also include a stipulation in the distributor contract that such claims are forbidden.
If Protandim were useful as medicine its effectiveness would have been proven effective by now (10 years after the product’s launch) and legally marketed as such. Instead, it’s predictably marketed as snakeoil bait for a cookie-cutter Utah pyramid scheme.
JOE… WHAT I DON’T UNDERSTAND IS WHY YOU DON’T TRY IT FOR A WHILE AND THEN PAY FOR YOUR OWN BLOOD TESTS AT WHATEVER LAB YOU CHOSE. IF YOU ARE SO POOR THAT THE ONLY REASON YOU ARE NOT TRYING IT IS BECAUSE THE DISTRIBUTOR SAID YOU HAVE TO USE A COMPANY LAB FOR THE TEST AND YOU CAN’T AFFORD IT THEN YOU CAN’T BE UP TO MUCH!!!
My God instead of wasting all this time rebutting comments and doing research wouldn’t you be further ahead to test the product yourself, independent of any distributor. That is what I am doing. I never jump into anything.
I have been using the product for 30 days now and had the blood tests done before and will do so again after 6 weeks Even if the blood tests don’t indicate a change I know how I feel and it is so much better. It’s not in my mind cause I started taking it believing IT WOULD NOT WORK!!!!! I was fooled but will let you know the blood results. sharon
Sharon, I never said I was too poor to buy protandim but wanted to know at first if anyone was willing to give it to me to put to the test. when stipulations on where to get blood tested popped up, I totally lost interest. Since then however I’ve stated that I will buy anything I try out personally so as to remove myself from any possible conflict of interest.
What specific blood tests are you having done?
Steve said: “Scott M. How ’bout we wait for the study to be peer reviewed before we say something with conviction.”
How about you learn to read. The article that Scott linked to made it abundantly clear that the study was already published (in 2011).
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/nrf2_antioxidant_protein_also_promotes_clogging_arteries-75189
Is it really necessary that we should have to spoon-fed this stuff to you (which you will then ignore anyway)?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20947826
If you’re going to participate in the discussion, try to not be so intellectually lazy and dishonest.
Greg B said: “The only study so far to cast doubts on Protandim was a small, incomplete one that even Joe C (our blog host) admits doesn’t really count. All of the others have been positive.”
There have been only two human clinical studies on Protandim published to date. The only one that was arguably “incomplete” was McCord’s original study published in 2006, which reported a 40% decrease in TBARS. I wouldn’t describe it as “incomplete” so much as it was just really badly designed (non-randomized, not placebo controlled, not double blind) and executed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16413416
The only other published human study on Protandim (2012) was much more “complete”; i.e., a well designed, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. It showed that Protandim did not lower TBARS.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22268125
In other words, the most reliable data to date shows that Protandim does not lower TBARS/oxidative stress. But you know that already; you just live in a world of blind denial and BS.
Vogel,
You referenced that “The only other published human study on Protandim (2012) was much more “complete”.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22268125
However, you did not mention that the study was only seven days long. This study does not meet the criteria in every claim that the benefits of Protandim takes 30 days. Did you forget to put two and two together? Also, the study was done on alcoholics. Show me another study that shows alcoholism has no effect on the body’s natural enzyme production.
Matt said: “Vogel — You referenced that ‘The only other published human study on Protandim (2012) was much more “complete”.’ However, you did not mention that the study was only seven days long.
This study does not meet the criteria in every claim that the benefits of Protandim takes 30 days. Did you forget to put two and two together? Also, the study was done on alcoholics.”
Matt, did it dawn on you to read more than the last few posts? I discussed the study in detail already; pointing out that it was a 7-day study, and also referencing what McCord said about the time to peak effect in the first human study. Since you need to be spoon-fed:
July 6: “But as I already pointed out, and you know full well, McCord himself stated in the 2006 paper that the peak effect of Protandim on TBARS/oxidative stress occurs in 5-12 days. The article stated:
‘Fig. 3 shows that the response of plasma TBARS is fairly rapid, with most of the change having occurred by 5 to 12 days’.”
http://supplementclarity.com/protandim-research-review-lifevantage/comment-page-7/#comment-86834
The study was not conducted in ‘alcoholics’ per se; it was done in people who had moderate alcohol use disorders (AUDs) characterized by an AUDIT survey score at or above 8 (a score of 8 is the threshold for moderate alcohol use problems – see p.20), were abstinent from alcohol during the entire course of the study, and had no liver diseases.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/who_msd_msb_01.6a.pdf
Not only was Protandim completely ineffective in reducing TBARS in the study, but it was a failure at twice the dose (1350 mg/day) used in the original 2006 study (650 mg/day, the same dose recommended by the company). The authors made no statement in the article that the failure of Protandim to do anything was a result of the time frame of the study or a result of the subjects having AUDs.
Your attempt to denigrate the study (and my reporting of it) is an epic fail.
I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT GREEN TEA, TUMERIC, ASHWAGAUNDA, BACOPA, AND MILK THISTLE ARE EXCELLENT HERBS TO INGEST AND HAVE PROVEN HEALTH BENEFITS. I have been taking them all individually for over 20 years. My cost of 50 dollars is far less than I have paid for the five individually. If you don’t know the health benefits of the above, then you haven’t been keeping up.
Aside from all else, protandum provides you with all these healthy herbs in one pill. It is very convenient and so easy to take. YOU ARE TALKING AS THOUGH THE HERBS CONTAINED IN THIS PRODUCT HAVE JUST BEEN INTRODUCED! Get with the times. They are as old as the hills and have been seen to have great health benefits OVER MANY MANY YEARS.
There is nothing new or earth-shattering in this product. It, simply put, is a very convenient way to get these herbs in your diet.
Sharron Volk said: “JOE… WHAT I DON’T UNDERSTAND IS WHY YOU DON’T TRY IT FOR A WHILE AND THEN PAY FOR YOUR OWN BLOOD TESTS AT WHATEVER LAB YOU CHOSE. IF YOU ARE SO POOR THAT THE ONLY REASON YOU ARE NOT TRYING IT IS BECAUSE THE DISTRIBUTOR SAID YOU HAVE TO USE A COMPANY LAB FOR THE TEST AND YOU CAN’T AFFORD IT THEN YOU CAN’T BE UP TO MUCH!!!”
If you don’t understand than you’re just plain dumb; and the fact that you don’t know how to turn off the caps lock on your keyboard more or less confirms it.
What if I was to tell you that my pee cures cancer and then get all shouty at you about how I don’t understand why you wouldn’t buy some off me and pay out of your own pocket to have some bogus test done?
Protandamites are dumber than a bag of hammers.
Sharon, it has been proven over and over again that if you want to take those herbs/spices, it is MUCH cheaper to buy them separately. If I remember correctly, without even buying in bulk, it comes to around 35 cents a day instead of $1.50.
Shoot, even the “inventor” of this pill, Paul Myhill, posted on his Facebook page yesterday that he doesn’t even buy the product, but mixes his own:
” I don’t even receive any free product from the company anymore. I instead mix up a variation of it for myself and my family.”
This is in a comment he wrote in a response to LazyMan yesterday.
https://www.facebook.com/paul.r.myhill?fref=ts
LOL.