(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
I have NOT read every comment on this page and what I am about to say may have already been touched on. If not, here goes.
First – The ONLY claim made by the company (Lifevantage) is that Protandim reduces oxidative stress in humans. There are NO other claims made by the company about the product.
Second – And this one is tied to the first – All of the studies outside of the first human clinical study were paid for, completed and published by universities and researchers NOT associated with Lifevantage. They were NOT inmplimented or influenced by Lifevantage. They were done of those researchers own accords.
Third – Distributors are warned to NOT make any claims outside of the first claim listed above. Any claims made by distributors are NOT representative of Lifevantage.
Fourth – Anecdotal evidence by customers should NOT be taken as proof OR disproof of Protandims effectiveness. Many amazing things have happened with patients taking Protandim. That said, the only claim made by Lifevantage is that Protandim lowers oxidative stress by 40% in 30 days.
Paul, thanks for writing. Question. if, as you say, only 1 study is associated with LV, why does Dr. Mcords name appear on the majority of the research papers?
Because Protandim was used in all the studies and he is the discoverer of Protandim.
Paul, you really should read all the comments here. Dr Mcord is NOT the discoverer of Protandim. That myth has been dispelled here by others.
Joe, thank you for the suggestion that I read ALL of the comments. I have. What a complete waste of my time. No where in any comment is there any evidence that Joe McCord is not the discoverer of Protandim. It has been implied by ONE poster (who happens to comment on EVERY post including mine) that Dr McCord is not in fact the discoverer of Protandim and you accept it as truth despite any evidence to the contrary. Dr McCord was not the only person involved in the formulation of Protandim, that is true. He was in fact responsible for the final formulation which was studied in the first human clinical prior to the product becoming a retail product (years prior to it becoming an MLM product).
If you would like to talk to a real doctor (a top pediatric cardiologist) who has spent hundreds of hours (not as a paid researcher for the company) studying the research done on Protandim, I have a resource for you. I will not post his info here as that would be unfair to him. I assume you have access to my email address? Contact me there and I will be happy to get you in touch with him so you can get some answers.
Paul, you may email me from the contact page if you like. I would ask however what evidence this cardiologist found that I did not find? I am no doctor (I only have a MS in exercise science and a BS in chemistry/biology) however, it does not take an MD to see deficiencies in the human trials. Does the cardiologist sell protandim?
I was under the impression you were trying to give an objective opinion on Protandim as a supplement. In your summary you offered some conclusions that I don’t believe are completely factual. So I offered the Dr as a resource for you to get a little better understanding as to the research.
I have no interest in arguing or cajoling. If you are not interested in talking to him it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. If you are actually trying to offer the truth about the supplement then I think it would be worth your time. If you are only trying to get readership for your blog…….mission accomplished, no reason to waste your time with facts and truth.
Paul would you care to share what points of my review are not factual. I have no issue correcting things that are proven to be incorrect. Its not arguing with you if I simply ask the question if the doctor sells protandim. its also not arguing to ask the question how he could have come to a different conclusion than I if he looked at the same data.
wow paul- in the words of my grandfather (a much wiser man than me… and clearly you) quit while you’re behind.
But I have to give you credit- when faced with crushing proof against your position, you came back for another whupping. Go get ’em Pauly.
BTW- To anyone interested, I did receive my bloodwork back after 3 months off the protandim- perfect now. I will still happily post the 12 of ’13 blood test (with 6 months on protandim- first time ever anything wrong with anything- cholesterol was high- only change in diet was the addition of protandim. 3 month subsequent test(4/14)- off protandim- blood test- perfect)
Paul said: “Joe, thank you for the suggestion that I read ALL of the comments. I have. What a complete waste of my time.”
That’s rather insulting to the blog host, not to mention all the other people who have invested their time putting facts on the table (something which you are yet to do). It’s also extremely disingenuous, as there is wealth of useful information here.
Paul said: “No where (sic) in any comment is there any evidence that Joe McCord is not the discoverer of Protandim. It has been implied by ONE poster (who happens to comment on EVERY post including mine) that Dr McCord is not in fact the discoverer of Protandim and you accept it as truth despite any evidence to the contrary.”
I guess people here assume that you are capable of conducting a simple Google search and looking at the patents for yourself. The inventors are clearly identified as Paul Myhill and Bill Driscoll. McCord is not the inventor (and again, the term is “inventor” not “discoverer”). The patent numbers are 7,241,461, 7,384,655, 7,579,026, and 7,923,045. Here are the links:
http://www.google.com/patents/US7241461
http://www.google.com/patents/US7384655
http://www.google.com/patents/US7579026
http://www.google.com/patents/US7923045
And just for good measure, here’ a signed letter from McCord admitting that he did not even play a significant role in the subsequent formulation of the product.
http://strangelyperfect.tv/12482/paul-myhill-publishes-joe-mccord-letter-on-facebook/
Since I was nice enough to spoon-feed this to you, I expect to hear you say thank you. You no longer have an excuse for professing ignorance about the facts regarding the invention and formulation of the product.
Paul said: “If you would like to talk to a real doctor (a top pediatric cardiologist) who has spent hundreds of hours (not as a paid researcher for the company) studying the research done on Protandim, I have a resource for you. I will not post his info here as that would be unfair to him. I assume you have access to my email address? Contact me there and I will be happy to get you in touch with him so you can get some answers.”
I would very much enjoy talking with him, but the whole point of a forum such as this is to have an open dialog in the public domain. There’s no reason to take the discussion offline. If this alleged cardiologist has something to share about Protandim, tell him to join in on the discussion here.
McCord is not the “discoverer” of Protandim (incidentally, supplement products are “invented” not “discovered”; McCord isn’t Magellan). Secondly, McCord wasn’t even the inventor of Protandim. It was invented by two guys (Paul Myhill and Billl Driscoll) with no credentials whatsoever in medicine, science, research, nutrition, etc,.and McCord was hired after the fact to serve as the official face of the company (i.e., to deceive consumers).
Even if McCord had invented Protandim, which he didn’t, that would not be sufficient basis for inclusion as an author on studies investigating the product; nor would merely supplying the product for a study, which is the cover story that distributors have routinely used. It would be fraudulent for McCord to pose as an author if he didn’t make a significant contribution to the preparation and final approval of the manuscript and to the research described therein.
http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
Lastly, there is direct evidence McCord was directly responsible for writing at least one of the manuscripts (subsequent to the first one published in 2006); it is stated explicitly in the Author Contributions section of this article [Liu et al. Protandim, a fundamentally new antioxidant approach in chemoprevention using mouse two-stage skin carcinogenesis as a model. PLoS One. 2009;4(4):e5284.]
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005284&representation=PDF
Furthermore, this schlocky review article on Protandim, which was published in 2012, explicitly states in the disclosure section that the sole author, Karen Davis, “has a financial interest in LifeVantage”
[Davis K. Understanding antioxidants: using various arsenals to impact the oral environment. Dent Today. 2012 Nov;31(11):92, 94, 96-7.]
You’re pattern of getting the facts horribly wrong, and being knee-jerk defensive about it, is exactly what I’ve come to expect of LifeVantage after witnessing the same pattern repeated over and over again. It’s deplorable.
Not true, Paul. I haven’t commented on your posts until now, and I was the first on this site to post the truth about McCord not inventing Protandim. I’ll copy what I wrote back then, since it is hard to find old posts, and there have been problems with comments disappearing from time to time:
“Yes, I do have references regarding the history of Lifevantage and McCord lying about who invented Protandim. It has been well documented. McCord went along with the lies for years.
Here is a LV document clearly stating that Joe McCord is the inventor of Protandim:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110721233521/http://www.lifevantage.com/products-breakthrough.aspx
That story began to unravel when people began to point out that McCord was not on the patent. LV came up with another story about the invention of Protandim to appease the critics. They (and McCord) made up a story about Myhill bringing a list of about 40 ingredients to McCord, which he quickly whittled down to the final formula. This was a way of claiming that McCord really was the inventor, but he just wasn’t on the patent since it was Myhill’s idea to begin with. Here is a video where McCord tells this story. Jump ahead to around the 38:54 mark if you don’t want to hear McCord’s entire career history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5vli73g_CA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Unfortunately for LV, Myhill became somewhat of a disgruntled ex-employee
and decided to expose this lie in a letter he posted on his Facebook page.
Here is part of that rambling letter:
“It is with great sadness that I write this on the eve of my Birthday – not exactly the “gift” I was hoping for . . . or hoping to give. Since 2008, I have been pleading with the company to correct its marketing materials – to reflect that Joe is not the “Inventor” or “Creator” or “Scientist behind” Protandim; that Protandim wasn’t “developed after 40 years of research;” and that it didn’t consist of a “laundry list” of 40 ingredients that Joe whittled down to the current formula. This is all simply untrue. I’m sure the company will try to put some sort of further spin on this now and try to convince people otherwise, but the truth is the truth and will always come out in the end. Darkness can’t hide from the light.
The CORE botanical formula I forwarded to Joe included the current five botanicals, plus one additional one – all in the EXACT same proportions/weights as the current formula (all 1/3 of the original to get it into one pill), but with Milk Thistle subsequently bumped up at my suggestion. The other ingredients were part of an “all-in-one” (multi-formula) addition to that CORE botanical formula that I developed. Given such indisputable facts (and that the initial patent was filed one month before we even met Joe), how am I NOT the creator? How is Joe THE creator? The simple email record, and even a letter from Joe himself, clearly show that the current company communications are downright false and misleading . . . and, in the eyes of many, perpetuate an ongoing fraud – one that the SEC and FTC should be made aware of.
I initially stated that “nobody lied,” desiring to give this current management team the benefit of the doubt and chalking it to human error and the discontinuity of company management in general. But then, month after month went by with the same erroneous materials still being widely distributed by the company, despite their own admission to me that Joe isn’t the creator. These same materials are on the company website TODAY. I just don’t get how a company can keep doing that, with full knowledge that the materials are sending the wrong message to current and new distributors. Many times I wrote emails (which I’d be happy to share with you) and each time nothing was done to take down the offending materials.”
End of quote. Entire letter can be found here:
http://strangelyperfect.tv/12482/paul-myhill-publishes-letter-from-joe-mccord-on-facebook/
On that same web page you can find a letter written by Joe McCord to Bill Driscoll in which he declined having his name on the patent for Protandim, since he felt he made no significant contributions to the development of the product. This verifies Myhill’s assertion that he did not present McCord with a list of 40 possible ingredients.
So, for those distributors who want to rely on McCord’s integrity as the only proof they need to believe in the product, maybe they should take another look.”
Paul said: “First – The ONLY claim made by the company (Lifevantage) is that Protandim reduces oxidative stress in humans. There are NO other claims made by the company about the product.”
That’s not even close to being the only claim made by the company. Executives like David Brown and Kirby Zenger both were complicit in illegal marketing of the products as remedies for diseases. There is video evidence and it has been discussed in considerable detail elsewhere. In addition, the company is responsible for the claims made by its distributors, and the latter have made illegal claims by the thousands. It’s offensive that you would come here and try to whitewash all of this.
“Second – And this one is tied to the first – All of the studies outside of the first human clinical study were paid for, completed and published by universities and researchers NOT associated with Lifevantage. They were NOT inmplimented or influenced by Lifevantage. They were done of those researchers own accords.”
That’s completely untrue. Again, it is offensive that you would make such an effort to purposely misinform people, especially when there is so much evidence that contradicts your assertion.
“Third – Distributors are warned to NOT make any claims outside of the first claim listed above. Any claims made by distributors are NOT representative of Lifevantage.”
The company pays lip service to the law by including such a warning in their Policies and Procedures document, but it is not enforced, and as I pointed out already, virtually everyone in the company from the top (executives and kingpin distributors) to the bottom (the peons) make unfounded and illegal disease treatment claims about the product. They are simply trying to cover their asses while they purposely and knowingly break the law. The de facto policy is simply “don’t get caught”.
“Fourth – Anecdotal evidence by customers should NOT be taken as proof OR disproof of Protandims effectiveness. Many amazing things have happened with patients taking Protandim. That said, the only claim made by Lifevantage is that Protandim lowers oxidative stress by 40% in 30 days.”
Anecdotal evidence from anonymous sources and those affiliated with the company should be dismissed without further consideration (that includes your bewilderingly contradictory anecdotal claim about “many amazing things”). Nothing truly amazing happens with Protandim (unless you consider the lightening of people’s wallets under false pretenses to be amazing). The entire enterprise is predicated on deception. Speaking of which, you are obviously a distributor and yet you have failed to heed company P&Ps by not identifying yourself as such. Business as usual.
My friend suggested I try Protandim. I am 55 year old male and in good health.My friend is neither a distributor or involved in any of the MLM part of this product so my evaluation and results are unbiased. First off in a matter of a month my hair has gotten much thicker and a deeper color of gray,my complexion is clearer,I have more energy,my lobito has increased substantially,my older guy belly has even gone down quite a bit along with several other very noticeable health improvements. Whatever this stuff is,how it is marketed or the substance of the research I really don’t care.Bottom line is it works for me and I will take it until the day I die. My two cents. Mark
Mark said: “my evaluation and results are unbiased…in a matter of a month my hair has gotten much thicker and a deeper color of gray, my complexion is clearer, I have more energy, my lobito (sic) has increased substantially, my older guy belly has even gone down quite a bit along with several other very noticeable health improvements. I will take it until the day I die.”
You don’t sound unbiased at all, Mark. There is no plausible basis for Protandim making your hair thicker and changing its color, affecting you complexion and libido, or making your fat belly disappear (or for any of the other miracle cure snakeoil claims made about Protandim). The only logical conclusion to be drawn from your claim is that it is false.
I can’t help but wonder why you think that making such a claim adds to this discussion. I find it hard to believe that anyone could be unaware of the fact that anonymous, testimonials of this nature should be universally regarded with the utmost skepticism. It’s really no different than if you were to claim that you have been abducted and probed by aliens or that you are sitting down to breakfast with Sasquatch. It’s akin to listening to the wild-eyed man on the street corner prophesying that the world will end tomorrow.
Given all that we know about LifeVantage and the organization’s history of deceptive claims, we can just add this one to that long, long list.
Get a life man don’t you have anything better to do then make yourself look stupid on here ? I do BTW. It works for me is all I’m saying whatever I want to say or think is my business I know the results and that’s all that matters to me not your ignorant comments.You have issues that have not been addressed so I recommend you try to sort those out before you blast others.
LOL, some people call Mark the Space Cowboy, some call him the gangster of love…i call him Pinocchio.
Full disclosure – I’m a distributor, and this is my personal, and admittedly biased opinion. I’m definitely not interested in being attacked for sharing something personal, so please just read if you want, or don’t read… it’s ok with me.
However, I personally would like to share my thoughts to those that might be interested.
I felt like many of you before taking Protandim, but now I can’t argue with the changes I’ve noticed in myself and that I’ve seen in others. Because of that I have a very strong personal belief in the product.
However, I can still understand everyone’s doubts… I was there too.
It took me a very…very…very long time to even try it. And even then I had doubts. Now I can’t argue with my personal results, and the results I’ve witnessed. Placebo? maybe… IMO, not likely for me at this point, and even if it were… I don’t care. Nothing else has given me the same results, so until there’s something better??? I no longer take my cocktail of antioxidants that I used to take either. So I’m actually saving money.
There’s no point in trying to convince people with a post – I’m just offering my admittedly biased opinion…. Whether or not Protandim works is something that people sometimes simply need to see or experience to believe… or hear a story from the right person… or from enough people… where things just start to point in one direction or another more and more. At some point it will happen for each of you – you will hear or see or read the right things to open your mind, and the information you need to see may just not be there yet. And that’s completely OK.
I became a distributor after trying Protandim, almost reluctantly… and eventually having the personal realization that there’s something to Protandim…recognizing that at some point everyone will hear the right thing from the right person, or enough of the right information… or there will be the right study…and eventually a whole LOT of people will be taking Protandim. I’m not a chronic MLMer… this is my first time in any MLM. But I saw the opportunity. The MLM path isn’t easy. That’s why most people fail – it’s hard to keep sharing when many people can be negative. But that’s also the key to the opportunity with MLM, and why some people do end up making a very good living.
On the non-financial side (this is the problem with MLM, that we are not unbiased), I do feel that it’s important to be objective, but it’s also important to have an open mind… and if there are too many negative comments, it may stop someone from trying Protandim. That’s very unfortunate if Protandim might have helped them in some way. I personally wish that I had heard of Protandim earlier, and that I had the right information to open my mind up to try it earlier as well.
As distributors, we can’t say it diagnoses, treats, cures, or prevents anything… but in my non-medical and non-scientifically proven opinion, Protandim helps.
All the best.
Hi Cary-
Thanks for the full disclosure. I’m sincerely curious- you said you’ve noticed “changes” which must be positive. What type of changes?
Since we have no human studies offered, all we have are “personal stories”, so I’ll offer my own full disclosure-
I tried it for 6 months and felt nothing but a lighter pocket. There was one actual verifiable medical change though- I’m a very healthy 52 yrs old and for the first time ever, my cholesterol tested high. (No dietary change- only protandim) I’m an avid cross-fitter and I tried it because another kool-aid drinking cross-fitter told me that he no longer experiences soreness due to exercise induced inflammation. I personally noticed no change in inflammatory response.
I’ll be re-tested for cholesterol in a few weeks (3 months in-between tests) and if anyone’s interested, I’ll be happy to post the results. (Been off the protandim for almost 3 months now as well)
Phil,
I believe Cary can not legally tell you what changes he has observed if they are disease related, since he is a distributor. I’m not sure if it is legal to make other types of claims, like…feeling calmer, more energy, more focused, etc. Joe or Vogel could clear that up.
I’ve argued that the claim of reducing oxidative stress shouldn’t even be allowed, due to the lack of reliable studies (not by my standards, but by the standards set by the FTC).
Lisarob said: “I believe Cary can not legally tell you what changes he has observed if they are disease related, since he is a distributor.”
Nope! That’s why he didn’t purposely avoided making any kind of tangible claim nor did he leave his distributor ID#. I suspect that the company and its distributors know that the Feds are breathing down their necks, so now they make comments that are so vague as to be utterly useless (i.e. distributor will say “I experienced “stuff” but I won’t tell you what that “stuff” is). That’s OK with me. They won’t be able to sustain the scam for long with fluff like that.
Lisarob: “I’m not sure if it is legal to make other types of claims, like…feeling calmer, more energy, more focused, etc. Joe or Vogel could clear that up.”
The FDA generally won’t go after claims like that because they are so vague and out of context. However, distributors typically take those vague claims a step further (and over the line) by implying that “calmer” is equivalent to an anti-anxiety effect, or that increased “focus”, means that it can treat ADHD. The reality is that there isn’t a stitch of legitimate evidence, nor logical reason to believe, that Protandim can even produce these vague and nonspecific effects (i.e., calming, energizing, focus, etc.).
However, according to U.S. law (under the domain of the FTC), supplement manufacturers are ultimately supposed to have substantiation about whatever claims they make about typical effects consumers can expect from taking their products. They have no such substantiation to support even the most basic claims about calm, energy, focus, etc. In that sense, the claims are misleading and technically illegal.
Lisarob: “I’ve argued that the claim of reducing oxidative stress shouldn’t even be allowed, due to the lack of reliable studies (not by my standards, but by the standards set by the FTC).”
I agree, for the reasons outlined in my previous comment about what the typical consumer can expect from taking the product. Evidence that Protandim does not have an antioxidant effect is stronger than the evidence that it does. It’s a claim that they would not be able to support if challenged by the FTC.
Thanks Lisa. I’m ignorant of the legalities… but it seems that it hasn’t (unfortunately) dissuaded many of the other distributors from making these claims.
Just a bit of a side note – all y’all should just take note on one of the binders that is used in the manufacture of the Protandim pill – magnesium stearate. I truly isn’t good for you.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/23/whole-food-supplement-dangers.aspx
Just saying.
HG,
He wasn’t. He was looking for the money. Mr Brown’s previous “gig” (an MLM) is defunct. Besides which, Mr Brown was only -ever – brought in to bolster sales.
They (more human trials) won’t be underway – probably. They’ve already achieved their purpose. They’ve convinced the masses that peer reviews are (sacrosanct) just – under the 10 Commandments.
The masses have already “run” with it. Never mind the old adage, “A fool and his money are soon parted”. And hey!!!! Protandim has sponsored an MLS soccer team. Can’t get any more legit as that!!! That is irony for you, Greg. They replaced another MLM that replaced, “Barry’s Bond’s and
Taxi Service” (my insert – don’t now if there is a Barry’s in Utah or not) Nice!!! Sweet!!!! Oh, you should see how Utahans have responded to that bit of advertising – (with disgust). To quote, ” I wish (their) sponsors were so dirty”. That was a quote though from a Utah newspaper.
Show me the money!!!!! I can hear Tom Cruise and Cuba Gooding Jr now!!! Show me the money!!!!
Not to beat a dead horse (as Vogel, Lisa, Scott and Joe, you all are doing a fine job handling this subject) but here’s one of the studies published in AHA’s Circulation Journal…
http://m.circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/20/1951.full
Sorry, it’s the mobile formatted URL, I’m posting from my cell phone. Anyway, I mention this article because of 2 main points I want to make. The first of these points has been clearly demonstrated by previous authors, that being that the study deals with RATS not humans.
The second point I’d like to make derives from a statement Protandim’s own David Brown made concerning this very study. The entire statement can be found here…
http://m.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-heart-association-journal-circulation-publishes-new-peer-reviewed-study-involving-protandimr-68835487.html
In his statement, Mr. Brown rightly says, “Although it would be premature to conclude that similar benefits would be seen in humans, these remarkable results open the door to the possibility of future research on pulmonary hypertension and Protandim in humans.”
Well stated Mr. Brown. One would think that a company so encouraged by the results of this study (from 2009 I might add) would immediately launch into clinical trials to discover if the benefits were duplicatable in humans. Well, what say you, Protandim?
After 2009 the ONLY published human study shows that placebo outperformed Protandim. And “outperformed” is really a bit of a misnomer here isn’t it? Because Protandim really didn’t perform at all.
Also, when are those other human studies from clinicaltrials.gov going to be published? Because according to them there are two circa 2012 that have been completed.
Also, here’s another thought… If Mr. Brown was encouraged by the findings of the 2009 study but not willing to draw conclusions about Protandim’s efficacy in humans, then what assumptions was he making about Protandim when they began marketing efforts in 2005?
Just my $0.02
Peace.
Greg,
By the way, you seem to neither be an scientist or lawyer either. So please refrain from accusing those of us here about we are or aren’t. Quite frankly, some of us here are more versed and more read in scientific process than are you.
Joe, my apologies.
Greg,
You are whacked! I mean it – seriously whacked up-side the head and brain-washed to the Nth degree. You have called me “ignorant” in one post (and I don’t really care about that all that much since I have a lot of very wealthy clients who take my advice on matters of health concerns they might have – and I don’t steer them wrong, because I do my research on various techniques and remedies and the such). That is called ETHICS, GREG. I have personal ethics(not my pocket book in mind) that bounds me to not only to research on behalf of my clients, but also to present to my clients some choices that may be good for them to take.
Greg,
Seriously, if you don’t want to be attacked – you shouldn’t bring on the thunder which only then calls down the Lightning.
Greg said:“WHAT contrasting evidence? WHAT valid rebuttals?…I went to these two studies. The first one does not mention Protandim in the abstract, so how is it relevant to this discussion?”
GREG,
What matters is not whether Protandim was mentioned or not. What matters is what the articles stated about activating the NrF2 molecule. GEEZ BOY!!! Get a brain and think for yourself for a change!!! Stop relying on what the company line is. Activating the NrF2 molecule that controls other transcriptions in the human body can lead to adverse effects and can (seriously) hinder a healthy body, rather than help it.. I don’t see why it is so hard for you to see that. You are so focused on it lowering “oxidative stress” that you are unable or un-willing to see the road as it curves. You are the ostrich that buries it’s head in the sand. Pull your head out of the sand and check out the consequences of activating the NrF2 molecule.
GREG,
I am not a professional MLM-basher. I’ve been in a few MLM’s – probably more than you’ve been in – quite frankly. I’m not bashing MLM’s – per se. I am bashing on you because your “peer-reviews” that don’t mean much of anything, because you are relating their initial finds with what happens out in the “real world”……….with real humans…………under the real stresses they go through – and no don’t give your usual crap about the 1 or 2 human sucess stories you have. I want to see more – Vioxx gave us more and we can all see how they turned out. The other thing I am bashing about your absolute “faith” in your product.
Remember!!! Every Sea World trainer was told that the animals under their care were sooooo happy, and they really loved to perform as they have been trained to do. And They sold that story for years – probably still do .
See through the lies GREG. Use your brain today!!!
Greg,
I guess what I find kind of curious is that when presented with contrasting evidence – you go silent for a period of time, and then resume the discussion as if no one has ever presented you with a valid rebuttal. You just seem to press ahead with the test tube studies that have been performed on human cells and mice and rats as if they say all that whatever successes happened there are going to (or ARE) equally valid in living active humans. You seem to think that “we’ve” forgotten about the evidence that has been presented to you.
You should check out the documentary, “Blackfish” sometime. It is about an orca, captured, mis-treated, and subsequently train to perform at SeaWorld. It is also about other orcas too. Every time a trainer got injured by an orca at Seaworld – the blame was placed on the trainer – not the orca. When the most famous of their trained orcas killed the most famous of their trainers, the initial report from the sheriff’s department was something tantamount to it being her fault. The media jumped all over it and the entire staff fell into line saying, “Yup, it was all on her”.
Here is where I’m going with this Greg. Just because your up-line says this or that or the other thing is true (according to the company), it doesn’t mean it is true. It means that if enough people are (even a few people) are crying, FOUL. Maybe you should take a step back and look (really look) and see if those folks crying “foul” don’t just have a valid reason for it.
You are backing SeaWorld………ooops Protandim because that is the company line.
In the story of SeaWorld, there were over 20 cases of orcas (in captivity) attacking their trainers, but none of it ever got reported. In SeaWorld, the longevity of an orca was severely misrepresented. In SeaWorld, it was reported that almost all dorsal fins in ALL orcas bent over.
Do you see where this is going Greg? Companies will twist the truth to make a dollar – almost EVERY TIME. The fact that you’ve been presented with evidence contra-indicating the (so-called) benefits of Protandim makes me think that you would be a good spokes-person for SeaWorld. In other words – you know where you paycheck comes from and you are willing to turn a blind eye those who are crying FOUL.
Good points, Scott.
Back on Feb 4th, I addressed this very issue with Greg B. As you noted, the relevance of test tube studies has been covered many, many times, and Greg chooses to ignore it completely, even when presented with information directly from PubMed. On Feb 4th, after posting the info from PubMed, I wrote this:
“This is why LV’s lab tests don’t amount to much…..no matter what you say, or how many times you say it. If you continue to say it, then the only conclusions which can be made are that you have a very low IQ (and I don’t think that’s the case), you are a dishonest person who will say anything to sell a product, or LV pays you to keep posting misinformation to bury the truth further back in the comments so others don’t see it. Sorry if that’s harsh, but this has been addressed many times already.”
The only other explanation would be that LV is very much like a cult, and has done such a good job of indoctrinating their followers that any information contradictory to their beliefs is immediately dismissed. It creates a cognitive dissonance which they can’t tolerate.
Great points Lisa. My guess is option 4,it’s a cult. I personally know 15+ distributors whom I’ve know for 20+ years. I have never seen any of them act the way they do now. Any reasonable questions posed to them about this product or “opportunity” is met with the same robotic answers. Any criticism is met with an emotional outburst. If you are not part of their “business” you are no longer part of their lives. These are all hallmarks of a cult. When this sham is over I don’t think it will end with a field of bodies lying next to empty cups of cool-aid, it will just end with destroyed reputations and friendships.
I completely agree with this statement…to the point I have Christian friends selling it in the name of “God’s work”…..I went to a meeting to appease and left thankful that cups of koolaid were not passed around.
Very well stated.
Scott–WHAT contrasting evidence? WHAT valid rebuttals? Most of what we have seen are the rantings of a professional MLM-basher who is neither a scientist nor a lawyer. When I go to the pubmed website and search Protandim, I get 16 hits. Not all of them are separate studies, but of those that are, only one showed a negative result, and that was the incomplete alcoholic study. ALL of the others showed positive results.
When I start seeing numerous studies showing that Protandim either does not lower Oxidative Stress, or that taking it does more harm than good to people, then I will change my tune.
You are right that just because a company says something doesn’t mean it is true. But to assume that said company is lying is just cynical. There is solid science supporting the claims made for Protandim. Yes, I’d like to see even more studies, but with what we have so far strongly trending towards the positive, I think it worth the trouble to not only take Protandim, but to encourage others to do so.
Greg said: “WHAT contrasting evidence? WHAT valid rebuttals?…I went to these two studies. The first one does not mention Protandim in the abstract, so how is it relevant to this discussion?”
Joe said: “Greg, the first study does mention protandim. You have to click on the full text link on the upper right of the screen here is the link to the full study. I checked it out myself after Vogel posted it. Kudos to him for pointing it out because I was not aware of it. Now I have to update my review…
Greg operates under the premise that if he closes his eyes and can’t see the evidence then it doesn’t exist. The truth is he is dishonest and just pretends that he can’t see the evidence in front of his face; or he’s too cognitively-impaired and/or lazy to follow a link.
Greg said: “The second is the already known, incomplete alcoholic study”
It’s more complete than any other study on Protandim that’s ever been published; a properly designed RCT in a top-tier journal (Am J Physiol). What’s worse is that you’re still dodging the point (all of the points actually; not just this one about suppression of negative results). The company – just like you – tries to sweep their failures under the rug as though they don’t exist. That’s a double whammy: (1) negative results disproving the marketing claims made about Protandim; and (2) a blatant attempt to suppress those negative results.
Scott said: “Most of what we have seen are the rantings of a professional MLM-basher who is neither a scientist nor a lawyer.”
Against whom are you directing this scurrilous accusation? If you’re going to resort to ad hominem attacks as a (dishonest) means of bypassing the incontrovertible evidence that has been repeatedly presented to you; then at least be man enough to own it – be specific. The truth is, you know nothing about any of the people who have posted here, but we know one thing for certain about you — you signed a distributor contract with the company that places upon you certain obligations, which you are shirking, and you have a conflict of interest. Trying to tar other people with the same brush is just plain dishonest.
Correction: Above, I mistakenly attributed the following quote to Scott when I meant Greg:
“Most of what we have seen are the rantings of a professional MLM-basher who is neither a scientist nor a lawyer.”
And Greg, I am still waiting for you to address this. Don’t just make a foolish accusation like that and run away — own it.
What you are are really trying to do is minimize the fact that you work for the company as a distributor (and have a clear cut conflict of interest) by slinging mud at other people in a dishonest attempt to level the playing field. Essentially, you are trying to say “You’re just as dirty as I am and, therefore, your facts don’t count.”
While it seems implausible that anyone could get paid to post damning facts about Protandim (and you have zero evidence to support your charge), it wouldn’t matter either way, because a fact remains a fact regardless of who presents it. You should be focusing on the message and not the messenger; the reason you don’t is because the truth is inconvenient for you.
Greg said: “When I start seeing numerous studies showing that Protandim either does not lower Oxidative Stress (sic), or that taking it does more harm than good to people, then I will change my tune.”
Here’s the problem Greg. We’ve shown you studies indicating that Protandim does not lower oxidative stress [Burnham et al. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2012;302(7):L688-99]. We presented you with a study suggesting that Protandim has effects that can be deleterious in MS patients [Vandenburgh et al. FASEB J. 2009;23(10):3325-34], and in that instance, you went so far as to claim that the study didn’t mention Protandim, when in fact it clearly did. We’ve also presented you with evidence that NRF2 activation and inhibition of physiologically important processes mediated by free radicals can be harmful.
Lastly, you were presented with evidence that the company suppresses the results of their studies when they are negative, and that the company has no new clinical trials planned and others never even got off the launch pad (clinicaltrials.gov). There will never be any studies conducted to investigate the adverse event profile of Protandim, so it is unrealistic of you to say that you will only be deterred when studies of that nature are published.
Greg B., you asked Scott: “WHAT contrasting evidence? WHAT valid rebuttals?”. Really? Really???? Here is what Scott said:
“I guess what I find kind of curious is that when presented with contrasting evidence – you go silent for a period of time, and then resume the discussion as if no one has ever presented you with a valid rebuttal. You just seem to press ahead with the test tube studies that have been performed on human cells and mice and rats as if they say all that whatever successes happened there are going to (or ARE) equally valid in living active humans. You seem to think that “we’ve” forgotten about the evidence that has been presented to you.”
Scott posted that statement right after ANOTHER round between you and Joe going back and forth over the relevancy of test tube and rodent studies vs studies done on humans. It’s been addressed over and over again, yet you keep coming back with it as if it hasn’t been discussed at all. I even copied and posted for you what PubMed has to say about the topic, yet you forge ahead with your party line.
At this point, I’m begging Joe to stop publishing Greg’s “test tube and rodent studies are relevant, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many of them done” rants. I think that’s fair at this point since it has been covered so many times.
What do you say, Joe?
Lisa, I understand your frustration. I think that anyone who reads these comments can understand the shortcomings of the protandim research. In that way, frustrating as it is to some (and me too sometimes), I think these back and forth conversations actually help future protadim buyers/distributors become exposed to different viewpoints, which they are not likely get from Protandim meetings.
I think there is value here that goes beyond what I originally wrote because people can see the arguments by protandim distributors as well as the counter arguments.
I also believe that when people of different viewpoints rationally interact with each other that change can occur. With that in mind, my personal hope is that instead of blindly believing the party line, that Greg and other protandim distributors seriously consider what we are saying and pressure LV to do better research. LV will change when it has to change. Change is mostly likely to happen when the people who sell it are exposed to different ideas based on irrefutable facts and rational thought.
Will everybody be open to this? Nope. For whatever reasons, there are distributors reading this who will never change and never believe a word of the facts we state.
While I do respect Greg, I’ve also noticed the same arguments (relevance of non-human research) continue to come up after they have been effectively dealt with several times. So Greg, please try to come up different arguments if possible. I’m willing to listen to your different pro-protandim arguments if you are willing to admit that the protandim research has major problems.
Scott said: “I guess what I find kind of curious is that when presented with contrasting evidence – you go silent for a period of time, and then resume the discussion as if no one has ever presented you with a valid rebuttal. You just seem to press ahead with the test tube studies that have been performed on human cells and mice and rats as if they say all that whatever successes happened there are going to (or ARE) equally valid in living active humans. You seem to think that “we’ve” forgotten about the evidence that has been presented to you.”
What you’ve pointed out here Scott attests to the true hidden value of the worthless faux ‘research’ that MLM supplement companies generate on their products. Distributors like Greg are coached to duck any and all challenges to the product’s validity by basically going mute and redirecting people to “the studies” (“just go to PubMed!!!”) — a stack of worthless paper that’s basically indecipherable to the average layperson.
That’s why LFVN spends millions of dollars to buy a guy like Joe McCord to be the spokeswhore for their products, instead of spending the money on legitimate scientific research. The purpose of the studies is to deceive consumers and provide distributors with a flak jacket to use when they are under fire; but in reality, the company is sending distributors to the front lines with invisible armor, making cannon fodder out of rubes like Greg.
i agree, most and i say most MLM’s convince rubes to recruit baby rubes…and according to Cher, “the beat goes on…”
I’ve never taken Protandim or any other herbal supplement, nor do I endorse its use in any way. However, as a biomedical researcher, I don’t get all of the hate directed at it. While there are few studies on the specific mix of ingredients in this product, there are certainly studies out there on the specific components alone. Green tea, for example, has been shown to potentially prevent cancer in certain contexts.
I think the biggest problem with this product are the claims that it can combat symptoms of specific diseases, which hasn’t been demonstrated beyond anecdotal evidence. The other problem, that some might consider, is that some data support the idea that a certain level of oxidative stress may actually be good for the body (see summary of James Watson’s editorial in The Lancet – theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/28/dna-pioneer-james-watson-theory-diseases).
also, people tend to think that because an herb or vitamin is natural that it is also safe, and that is not always the case. Consider, for example, that green tea extract is associated with rare, but serious liver injury and that selenium and vitamin E may increase the risk of prostate cancer (medicalnewstoday.com/articles/273069.php).
The other thing to keep in mind is that herbal supplements can interfere with absorption or activity of certain pharmaceutical medicines. You should always discuss any supplements with your doctor to rule out possible interactions.
Just my two cents.
Curious Cassowary said: “I’ve never taken Protandim or any other herbal supplement, nor do I endorse its use in any way. However, as a biomedical researcher, I don’t get all of the hate directed at it.”
What about this simple scenario are you having a hard time grasping? People don’t hate Protandim per se; the animosity is directed towards those who market the product dishonestly and illegally. It should be easy to understand why it’s a serous public heath issue when hustlers try to con people into buying fake medicine.
The other aggravating factor is the pyramid scheme nature of the business, where people are lured under false pretenses to participate in a money-losing venture. In a nutshell, distributors are being armed with a bottle of scandalously overpriced capsules and told that they should try to get rich by telling consumers (friends and family typically) that the product will cure whatever ails them. Surely you know understand the righteous indignation that people feel.
Curious Cassowary said: “While there are few studies on the specific mix of ingredients in this product, there are certainly studies out there on the specific components alone. Green tea, for example, has been shown to potentially prevent cancer in certain contexts.”
You must be a very green “biomedical researcher” if you don’t yet know the difference between poorly-designed in vitro studies and anecdotal reports versus the large-scale randomized, controlled, clinical trials that are necessary to demonstrate therapeutic efficacy and safety in support of product claims. Such definitive data are lacking for the ingredients in Protandim and for Protandim itself. In fact, the only half decent clinical study on Protandim to date showed that it didn’t do anything; so regardless of what limited data the studies on the ingredients have thus far provided, the RCT on the product itself generated negative results.
I hope you’re not seriously suggesting that the faint whisp of green tea dust in Protandim can prevent cancer, because it seems like that’s what you’re hinting at. If you really wanted to experiment with green tea and cancer prevention, then drink tea or buy supplements from reputable companies and it will cost probably about a 1/50th or less of what Protandim costs.
Good post, Curious! You made some interesting points. There have actually been about a dozen studies published (so far) of Protandim itself, which is more than most supplements ever receive [most supplements try to piggy-back on studies of their various ingredients].
Lifevantage makes NO claims about Protandim’s ability to treat any particular disease, and it instructs its distributors to do the same. Regretfully, not all have followed that instruction.
As for some Oxidative Stress being beneficial, it may well be. But Protandim does not eliminate all OS, it just reduces it to the level normally seen in younger, healthier people.
Your point about some “natural” products actually being harmful is well taken. However, the actual amounts of the ingredients in Protandim are not high enough to be dangerous to the average person; it is the combination of the ingredients in the patented ratio which makes Protandim so effective.
Protandim is not known to interfere with prescription drugs, but we urge anyone considering taking Protandim who is under medical care for anything to check with his doctor first before beginning, to make sure it is okay.
Your two cents are worth a lot more than the slugs and plug nickels the Protandim haters have been trying to pass off as real currency on this board!
Greg, I found 13 studies on Protandim when I reviewed it. Only 2 of them involved people. That means 15% of the evidence stems from human studies and 85% of the evidence stems from non-human studies. That reduces the overall power of the proof in my opinion. If we leave out the alcoholic study that shows protandim didn’t work (I’ll leave it out because its a weird study), then we have only 1 study – the very first protandim study (from 2006) showing it reduces oxidative stress in people.
Greg, do you have any info on when is LV coming out with more human studies? I’m not trying to be disrespectful of anyone because I’m curious about this stuff too. I just think LV owes its distributors better evidence than is currently out there.
Its not enough to say LV let others do the research. LV really should take the lead on this because after all, protandim is their product.
Joe, as you well know, most early studies of any product like this are animal and test-tube studies. Are you saying that the non-human studies have no value? They are relevant, or else so many of them, on so many products, would not be performed.
Since Lifevantage is not currently conducting any studies on Protandim (that I know of), it has no way of knowing when studies currently underway will be published. We eagerly await them. As for LV sponsoring its own studies, if that was happening we would be accused of buying favorable results. Studies conducted by independent researchers carry much more weight.
If LV was to do a repeat of the first study on a larger scale, would you volunteer to be one of the subjects? I and many others would like to see such a study, but done independently, for integrity’s sake.
Greg, Non human studies have their place but here’s the thing: the very first protandim study (done in 2006) was a human study. It’s only after that study did the research regress to lab animal and test tube research which is less relevant.
Why did they start with human research and then go back to doing research that was non-human based? That is what always made me scratch my head?
I would not accuse LV of buying favorable results if they did their own research. As long as the research is well done and LV is not involved in the data collection or interpretation of the data, then I’d welcome it. If the research holds up to scrutiny, then nobody could say anything. I’d even defend them here too.
Sure I’d be part of a study, if it was well done.
Why don’t Protandim distributors put pressure on LV to do or support better research? Does anybody ask these questions at Protandim conventions?
Joe, my understanding is that Dr McCord and his team had been performing in-house animal and test-tube studies prior to doing the first human clinical study, but they did not publish them; they were just experimenting to see if there was anything to the idea that combining anti-oxidant herbs would be helpful. When they got positive results they conducted the human study, to see if Protandim had the same effect on people (which it did). This study was conducted with intent to publish,whereas the earlier ones were not.
You may not accuse Lifevantage of buying study results if it sponsored studies, but there are others who would. I actually agree with the idea of keeping the company distant from studies, for integrity’s sake. But the downside is that we have little control over what things are studies, or when they are published.
As for another study like the first one, a number of us distributors have expressed interest in seeing it. There may even be one currently underway. I will ask about it.
Greg, thanks. If they did studies prior to the 2006 study, since its unpublished its impossible for us to judge them either way. I’d think given the positive outcome of the 2006 study, they would have published any pre-2006 studies as this would add to their body of knowledge, but Ill leave that to others to judge.
Yes, please do let me know if you turn up any other studies in the pipeline. I’m happy to learn distributors are asking for it also.
Greg said: “You may not accuse Lifevantage of buying study results if it sponsored studies, but there are others who would. I actually agree with the idea of keeping the company distant from studies, for integrity’s sake. But the downside is that we have little control over what things are studies, or when they are published.”
The reality is that if the company did not solicit and buy studies on their product, no research on it would ever take place, because there is zero interest among the scientific community in studying scammy snakeoil MLM products. The company initiates these studies for marketing purposes; not in the interest of furthering scientific knowledge.
This is evidenced by the fact that their initial clinical study was hopelessly poorly designed (no controls, blinding, or randomization; questionable endpoints, improper data analyses) and rigged from the start (e.g., company investors as test subjects, ‘bad’ data points purposely omitted, etc.). The entire ‘scientific program’ is misleadingly designed to replicate findings that were previously published (i.e., those studies showing that some of the ingredients that Protandim is made from act as antioxidants and induce NRF2 in vitro) and pretend that they are novel results with great scientific importance. It’s a charade designed to fool the gullible. And it’s not just LifeVantage that relies on such chicanery – all dietary supplement MLM companies do it.
Be warned that the company never talks about the research in which Protandim failed to produce significant results [e.g., Burnham et al. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2012;302(7):L688-99 / Vandenburgh et al. FASEB J. 2009;23(10):3325-34] If they were interested in furthering scientific knowledge, they would talk about these studies as loudly as their other studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19487307
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22268125
They would give credit to the researchers that originally demonstrated the effects of curcumin, green tea extract, etc on oxidative stress and NRF [Balogun et al. Biochem J. 2003;371(Pt 3):887-95/Dickinson et al. FASEB J. 2003;17(3):473-5 / Kweon et al. J Biol Chem. 2006;281(44):33761-72 / Wu et al. Life Sci. 2006;78(25):2889-97], rather than pretending that they pioneered the field.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12570874
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12514113
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16950787
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16378625
They would freely admit the well-known shortcomings of the error-prone TBARS method that was used to demonstrate the alleged antioxidant effects of Protandim in vitro [Moore and Roberts. Free Radic Res. 1998;28(6):659-71 / Knaslueller et al. Br J Nutr. 2008;99 E Suppl 1:ES3-52].
They would discuss the potentially deleterious effects of inhibiting oxidation and upregulating NRF2 in vivo, which have been demonstrated in reputable published studies.
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/nrf2_antioxidant_protein_also_promotes_clogging_arteries-75189
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7354/full/nature10189.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128204.500-natural-antioxidants-could-scupper-tumours-detox.html#.UsT3cPRDuSo
They would also publicize that of the 3 human clinical trials they once bragged about in press releases, 2 were never published (one was never even initiated), and the one that was published showed produced negative results.
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=protandim&Search=Search
http://investor.lifevantage.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=610955
They would acknowledge that their research budget is infinitesimal, and most of what they allotted to R&D went to pay consulting fees to members of the scientific ad board (this was disclosed in their SEC filings).
This really isn’t a very complicated jigsaw puzzle. Even a child could be able to put all the pieces together and comprehend the bigger picture.
In reply to Vogel–you wrote this:
“Be warned that the company never talks about the research in which Protandim failed to produce significant results [e.g., Burnham et al. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2012;302(7):L688-99 / Vandenburgh et al. FASEB J. 2009;23(10):3325-34] If they were interested in furthering scientific knowledge, they would talk about these studies as loudly as their other studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19487307
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22268125”
I went to these two studies. The first one does not mention Protandim in the abstract, so how is it relevant to this discussion? The second is the already known, incomplete alcoholic study, which even Joe C acknowledges doesn’t really count.
Greg, the first study does mention protandim. you have to click on the full text link on the upper right of the screen here is the link to the full study http://www.fasebj.org/content/23/10/3325.long
I checked it out myself after Vogel posted it. Kudos to him for pointing it out because I was not aware of it. Now I have to update my review…
Joe, I admittedly don’t have much scientific training, but if I understand the study correctly, it says that Protandim does not increase a certain type of muscle activity in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Well, it is good to know that. The more we know about Protandim, the better. But no claim has ever been made that it does do that, so the finding that it doesn’t do so is of little significance.
Protandim is not a “cure-all”, and we don’t say that it is. There is nothing in this study to indicate that Protandim does not lower Oxidative Stress in the average person, which is all that we DO claim it does.
Greg, I have not read the entire study yet, just scanned it. I do hope to be able to speak more intelligently on it after I read it in the near future.
Greg said: “Joe, I admittedly don’t have much scientific training, but if I understand the study correctly, it says that Protandim does not increase a certain type of muscle activity in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Well, it is good to know that. The more we know about Protandim, the better. But no claim has ever been made that it does do that, so the finding that it doesn’t do so is of little significance.”
Glad you were finally able to find the ‘click’ button on your mouse, but as usual, you do not understand correctly. The study did not show that Protandim had no effect; it had effects opposite to those of drugs that are effective in MS therapy; i.e., it had potentially deleterious effects. This does not suggest that Protandim would be useless for MS patients; it suggests that it could be harmful. This study is more significant than any of the worthless test tube studies you keep touting.
Greg said: “Protandim is not a “cure-all”, and we don’t say that it is. There is nothing in this study to indicate that Protandim does not lower Oxidative Stress in the average person, which is all that we DO claim it does.”
You keep making this assertion about the product claims despite the fact that it is clearly untrue. Do we now need to focus our attention on documenting here the hundreds of examples where company executives and distributors of all levels have in fact claimed that Protandim is, in essence, a cure all?
Bear in mind that the exercise would not be intended to convince you of anything, because you are either impervious to logic or purposely playing dumb (very convincingly too I might add) and would simply ignore it, while trotting out still more red herrings, which has been your consistent modus operandi thus far.
Greg said: “Lifevantage makes NO claims about Protandim’s ability to treat any particular disease, and it instructs its distributors to do the same. Regretfully, not all have followed that instruction.”
Correction: “LifeVantage” is not a faceless entity; it consists of various individuals, and those individuals have in fact chronically made false and illegal claims about Protandim having curative properties. It has been well documented that such claims have been made by senior executives of the company including CEO David Brown, COO Kirby Zenger, and CSO Joe McCord, as well as hundreds of individual distributors at all levels of the organization. It’s not by accident that these claims, completely lacking in any basis in fact, are so prevalent – it is by design. The entire scam is predicated on the false notion, perpetuated throughout the organization, that Protandim can prevent, cure, or mitigate diseases.
Greg said: “As for some Oxidative Stress being beneficial, it may well be. But Protandim does not eliminate all OS, it just reduces it to the level normally seen in younger, healthier people.”
That’s a ridiculous and unfounded claim. You have no idea about the extent to which Protandim interferes with physiologically important functions of free radicals in the body. When you don’t know something (and you clearly know nothing in this case) it’s OK to simply say “I don’t know”. Don’t make a fool of yourself by making random guesses. You also apparently need to be reminded AGAIN that the only properly designed clinical study on Protandim to date (Burnham et al. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2012;302(7):L688-99) showed that it did not reduce oxidative stress.
Greg said: “Your point about some “natural” products actually being harmful is well taken. However, the actual amounts of the ingredients in Protandim are not high enough to be dangerous to the average person; it is the combination of the ingredients in the patented ratio which makes Protandim so effective.”
Correction: (1) You cannot make any claims about the safety of Protandim because doing so is prohibited by the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act, and the product has never undergone any type of acceptable safety evaluation. (2) The notion that Protandim has a magical ratio of ingredients that cannot be duplicated is a marketing fairy tale concocted by the company to deceive consumers.
All MLMs make similar claims about their products (Monavie, Jusuru, Juice Plus, etc.) to justify the exorbitant prices, and in every case it is complete and utter BS. Just use a little commonsense and pay attention to the fact that the company altered the ratio of ingredients and composition for the version of the product that is now being marketed in Japan, and they also did so for the Canine Health supplement. Furthermore, if you were to ingest a sip of tea or a whiff of turmeric, then the ratio would in effect be altered. There is no golden ratio. Smarten up!
Greg said: “Protandim is not known to interfere with prescription drugs, but we urge anyone considering taking Protandim who is under medical care for anything to check with his doctor first before beginning, to make sure it is okay.”
Correction: What you should have said was “I have no clue whether or not Protandim interferes with prescription drugs.” How would a doctor know anything about Protandim or its ingredients? If he/she did, they would surely tell their patient to run the other direction or not waste their money; or if they’re trying to be diplomatic, they might just tell them to do whatever makes them happy, since it’s an OTC product and would be presumed to not likely be harmful.
Greg said: “Your two cents are worth a lot more than the slugs and plug nickels the Protandim haters have been trying to pass off as real currency on this board!”
Au contraire my curried snakeoil pill-pushing friend. You are yet to state anything that’s remotely accurate or to refute any of the facts that I have provided. You are batting zero at this point.
It costs over $700 to join initially and then over $50 monthly to become a distributor
Thanks Joe….Punkin loves compliments too! She’s getting up in years,( sure happens quick with dogs) but she is definitely enjoying a spurt of renewal herself with Canine Health. Another LifeVantage product. As you have discovered I am involved in the healing arts. I spend my days and energy sharing healing and massage modalities that bring easement and well being to a highly stressed out society.
I’m all about frank, informative, and courteous discussions. I truly respect how you handle this blog and appreciate the informational service you’re providing. Kudos!
It seems that the biggest critics of Protandim come from the camp of “never have and never will take this snake oil.”. Yet by and large most people who have taken Protandim don’t want to stop, regardless of how it’s sold or that the research is questionable. Truthfully I don’t like MLM. I don’t like treating my friends and family as potential customers. However I am all about sharing something that I think is wonderful. And I am feeling wonderful these days!
I’ve got friends and family with various degrees of health issues. Parkinson’s, Alpha One Anti Trypsen Deficiency, Autism, high cholesterol, heart disease, olden age, and depression to name a few. I’m conducting my own research. I’ve given twelve people Protandim. And I want to know honestly if there is relief to be had by taking one naturally derived yellow pill everyday. It seems too good to be true. I wouldn’t believe it except this marvelous feeling of well being is bursting within me.
Spring fever perhaps? Time well tell. I’m in no hurry to convince the world. But I am grateful for my own elevated state of health.
Susan Wilnut said: “It seems that the biggest critics of Protandim come from the camp of “never have and never will take this snake oil.”
Two things – (1) I Where is the evidence that the “biggest critics” of Protandim have stated that they “never have and never will take this snakeoil”? It’s a fairly logical assumption to make, but nonetheless, you shouldn’t use false attributions and erroneous quotes to support your opinion.
(2) It is perfectly reasonable to (a) be critical of Protandim, and (b) to be critical without having tried the product or ever intending to. When something absolutely screams “scam!” the only logical thing to do is stay away from it. Furthermore, there’s nothing wrong with being critical of things that one hasn’t actually tried. That’s pretty much the basis for passing knowledge from generation to generation – it saves us from repeating avoidable mistakes. Have you tried cyanide? How about jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge? No??? Why not if you haven’t tried it. Get the point?
SW: “I’ve got friends and family with various degrees of health issues. Parkinson’s, Alpha One Anti Trypsen Deficiency, Autism, high cholesterol, heart disease, olden age, and depression to name a few. I’m conducting my own research. I’ve given twelve people Protandim.”
I can’t mince words – doing what you described is a danger to society. It’s also illegal to promote Protandim as a diseases remedy.
In fairness to Susan, she prefaced her comment with “it seems to me”, which imputes nothing as “fact”.
Also, nobody has ever said that cyanide, or jumping from the GG bridge would produce any health benefits, so choose a different example.
And I see nothing wrong with giving this to friends and family (AS LONG AS THEY CHECK WITH THEIR DOCS FIRST) to see if they also get a feeling of “bursting within them” too.
Disclaimer- I have tried protandim for 6 months. Felt no effect whatsoever. No bursting 🙂
Fairness to Susan should be the least of you concerns, given that she’s misleadingly and illegally promoting Protandim as a disease remedy — how about fairness to the consumer and basic respect for US law?
Secondly, I didn’t say that she stated anything as fact; I simply asked for the evidence that led here to make that conclusion about how things “seem”, and I asked the question somewhat rhetorically, because as far as I can tell, those who have criticized Protandim did not specify whether or not they had tried the product.
Using this “you can’t criticize anything until you try it” canard is a page right out of The MLM Apologist’s Handbook. It’s a threadbare premise, which is what I tried to point out when I used the analogies about cyanide and jumping off bridges. It’s simply false to assert that the validity of criticism is in anyway dependent on whether or not the critic has tried the product. The onus is on the manufacturer to provide reliable evidence supporting whatever claims they make about the effects of their product; it’s not something that consumers should have to figure out by trial and error at their own expense. Consumers should never trust anonymous testimonials alleging that some sketchy MLM product can miraculously cure diseases. Susan’s claims are the hallmark of a dishonest snakeoil pitch.
Protandim cures nothing; nor does it alleviate anything aside from excess weight in the wallet. Protandim waves every red flag that consumer agencies and patient organizations tell consumers to watch out for. Critical information discussed here and elsewhere eliminate any possible shadow of doubt as to the scamminess of Protandim.
There are literally thousands of MLM snakeoil products that are being marketed as wonder cures to unsuspecting consumers. It makes no sense to advise people that they should try them all of them — that advice would lead people to financial ruin and expose them to unnecessary health risks, since these products do not undergo stringent safety testing and the companies that sell them have a consistent track record for dishonesty.
Unfortunately Vogel- you appear nuttier than the kool-aid drinking MLM folks are dishonest. I am not a proponent of Protandim. As I have stated, I tried it for six months and felt no benefits from it. So I simply stopped taking it.
But I have to disagree with you regarding Susan’s statements. She is not promoting it as a cure for diseases.
You seem to be a serial lecturer (at least on this site. God only knows how many others you “lecture” on)
It seems that the only highly opinionated people here are the vehemently opposed to anything MLM (understandable) and the distributors espousing the company playbook.
Seeing as the company won’t sponsor any independent research,
it would be interesting to see how many people who are not distributors (if they can be honest about it) and have tried protandim would give their own results.
I’ll volunteer to be first: again- not a distributor- tried it for 6 months to no beneficial effect.
Anyone else?
Phil said: “But I have to disagree with you regarding Susan’s statements. She is not promoting it as a cure for diseases.”
Disagree all you like but that won’t change the fact that, by her own admission, she is promoting this a disease treatment. She came on this website and announced the following:
Susan: “I’ve got friends and family with various degrees of health issues. Parkinson’s, Alpha One Anti Trypsen Deficiency, Autism, high cholesterol, heart disease, olden age, and depression to name a few. I’m conducting my own research. I’ve given twelve people Protandim. And I want to know honestly if there is relief to be had by taking one naturally derived yellow pill everyday.”
The transgression couldn’t be much clearer. If you can’t see it, it’s either because you’re in denial or simply don’t understand the relevant US laws that bar such practices .And it’s not just Susan who resorts to such illegal snakeoil marketing. The practice is rampant throughout the organization form the very top to the very bottom. The entire scam is predicated, in violation of US law, on the false notion that Protandim can cure, treat, prevent or mitigate the symptoms of diseases. This has been so amply documented already that it would be foolish to even attempt to dispute it. If you want to ignore the elephant in the room, go ahead, but it won’t change facts.
Phil said: “Seeing as the company won’t sponsor any independent research, it would be interesting to see how many people who are not distributors (if they can be honest about it) and have tried protandim would give their own results.”
Au contraire, I can think of few things less interesting. What exactly are you proposing; conducting a randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trial or simply gathering anonymous testimonials? The latter would be worthless, and an RCT was already done on Protandim — it showed that it had no significant effects; not even antioxidant effects. What “results” are you proposing to study? A disease outcome? If Protandim had any therapeutic value whatsoever, you would have known about it by now – it would have been blockbuster news and the company would have done everything in its power to get it off the launch pad; LifeVantage would be courted by major Pharma companies and LifeVantage’s stockholders would prosper. Win-win for everyone right? The company doesn’t do this however; Instead they focus their efforts on deciding how best to deceive people.
Your logic (or lack thereof), by extension, would dictate doing similar “studies” on every MLM product that’s every been claimed to be a miracle cure. That would include Xango, Xrii, Nopalea, Juice Plus, Monavie, Jusuru, and products by Melaleuca, Youngevity, etc. And that’s just the tip of the MLM iceberg. You would have to “study” hundreds or thousands of products, and that would not only be an overwhelming task, it would be a colossal waste of time and resources.
By now, you should know that snakeoil products sold through MLMs like LifeVantage are scandalously overpriced, useless, and unworthy of consideration by consumers. There’s a reason why companies choose the MLM model, and it isn’t to address issues of public health; it’s to fleece the sheep.
Vogel-
Seek help for your problem.
I don’t think you understand that I don’t believe protandim works as promised.
You also, in your apparent need to lecture, have no problem taking comments out of context.
Take a deep breath Vogel, and have a blessed day
Phil said: “I don’t think you understand that I don’t believe protandim works as promised.”
I don’t think you understand that you don’t believe Protandim works as promised; otherwise you wouldn’t have said the following:
“Seeing as the company won’t sponsor any independent research, it would be interesting to see how many people who are not distributors (if they can be honest about it) and have tried protandim would give their own results.”
Are you always in the habit of suggesting that research be undertaken to investigate products that you believe don’t work? That sounds rather fruitless; hence my previous comment about how inanae it would be for consumers to try even a fraction of the MLM products that have been claimed (illegally mind you) to be a miracle cure.
Phil said: “You also, in your apparent need to lecture, have no problem taking comments out of context.”
I don’t have a need to lecture; I do have a responsibility to correct misinformation and illogical premises. I don’t see that I took a single thing that you said out of context. If I did, I would be happy to redress it, but you failed to outline even a single instance. The issue here doesn’t seem to be that you are being taken out of context; it is that you aren’t articulating your thoughts in a clear and logical manner.
Phil said: “Seek help for your problem… have a blessed day.”
Where did you find that blessing? The Satanic Bible? In the future you can spare the false piety when you’re trying to diss me.
Vogel-
Clearly protandim is not what you need. try finding some other colored pills that might improve your mood. I am not trying to diss you.
I think we can discuss this while being civil to each other. No insults or sarcasm on either side please.
Thanks for this forum and your research Joe. I’ve been taking Protandim for 75 days and decided to sign up as a distributor because of the positive results I’m experiencing; increased energy, clearer focus, and an over all sense of well being. Plus my boyfriend who I see once a week says I’m looking better every time we get together. I’ll be 60 this month so I do appreciate a compliment.
I really like the woman who got me involved. She’s a client and gave me a bottle for free to try. After thirty days I wanted to keep taking Protandim but didn’t want to be active in an MLM. She gave me another bottle. After two months I wanted in. I’m not much of a sales woman so my business plan is to give away the bottles I had to purchase as a new distributor.
We’ll see if my friends and family feel better and want to continue with Protandim.. So here you go Joe. If you want a free bottle I’ll be happy to send you one!
Susan, thanks I appreciate that. I may one day decide to test protandim on myself but right now I have no plans. I do appreciate your kind offer. I’m happy that its helping you and I agree, compliments from significant others are always nice. By the way, your spa dog, Punkin is very cute on your website 😉
Greg,
Actually, in the 2008 patent of Protandim, it was listed that “the compositions of this invention are useful to prevent or treat the following disorders or diseases:” It really is in the 2008 patent. Okay, you caught me…….zebra-itis isn’t in there (it was my attempt at humor), but dang near everything else is in there.
Here it is – just for you (and maybe Christopher too):
http://www.google.com/patents/US7384655#v=onepage&q=&f=false
GREG, I’m sorry. I know it is a hard “pill” to swallow when you know you’ve been duped. But this is really the patent that was granted to Paul R Myhill and William J Driscoll, his co-inventor (insert co-conspirator if it comes to mind).
THE COMPOSITIONS OF THE PRESENT INVENTION ARE USEFUL TO PREVENT OR TREAT THE FOLLOWING DISORDERS OR DISEASES………………
GREG,
That was, I believe the second patent. You “patently’ don’t know what you are talking about as far as patents go. Yeah, yeah………..”cure” was never really mentioned in it. But it you treat syphilis with an anti-biotic….., and it works….you are curing the patient of it. Don’t try to argue semantics with me – you will lose.
Let’s see………..oh yes. Tumeric (and to a lesser degree green tea) – one of the active ingredients of Protandim. Tumeric actually creates free radicals in the system that then in turn – the body activates the NrF2 molecule to “fight”. So let me get this straight Greg. We want to introduce more free radicals into a system that is operating just fine (provided the diet is a correct one for the system) just to turn on the mechanism that fights free radicals – which then in turn has to rid the body of the free radicals that we’ve created, in order to fight other free radicals that may actually be helping the body get rid of bacteria and the such. Hmmmmm, interesting concept. By that logic, if I wake up with a huge hang-over, I should just drink more whisky or vodka or tequlla and by noon I should be ready to go again.
Oops here is your link Greg, since you like us to provide you with relevant links but for some reason, you don’t feel like you have to:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12570874
Gist of it is – introducing compounds like tumerc actually create free radicals into the system. They DO act as a catalyst by creating free radicals that, in turn, the NrF2 molecule has to come out and deal with.
Vogel dealt with your last objection or maybe your first (plaintive) plea about why activating the NrF2 molecule may be a bad thing. Here it is again in case you missed it. It is a synopsis of a study that was performed back in 2010. No Protandim wasn’t used, but until more data is collected – hence why we are all looking at Protandim with mild (more than mild) skepticism because GNC couldn’t sell it – and it was only until it became an MLM which drew the MLM crowd to it………….because all the other MLM garbage has a record of failing – HUGE!!!!
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/nrf2_antioxidant_protein_also_promotes_clogging_arteries-75189
The study was conducted by the David Geffen School of Medicine (read that as the UCLA School of Medicine – amazing what will be named after you, after a $200M trust). Point here, is they weren’t even looking into what happens when the NrF2 molecule is activated. They were looking for something else altogether. But they were honest enough to report their finding at what else they had discovered along the way – yes, I read the study.
GREG,
I really am sorry. I’ve stood where you are now. I was an MLM addict and bought into everything that was “sold” to me from my up-lines. If I were the un-thinking man today, as I was then…………I would buy into Protandim, hook, line and sinker – almost did until I told my friend that I wanted to investigate it on my own. I couldn’t buy what they were selling anymore after I looked into it.
Christopher,
Prove your product works first, before offering to coach anyone on how to sell it better. Since the patent is so open-ended in stating that Protandim cures everything from acne to (almost) zebra-itis (being kicked by a zebra), I think your first step would be to discover if it even activates the NrF2 molecule at all (yes,I’ve read the “peer reviews” on studies performed with McCord and his bunch.
but I’ve read nothing about any peer reviews from any major medical university doing any research on the big 5 ingredients), and then to see what the pros and cons are of activating the NrF2 molecule are (and yes, there are big cons to activating the NrF2 molecule that LifeVantage hasn’t published – that were published from at least one independent university).
Then prove that Protandim actually works in synergy with the NrF2 molecule (which hasn’t been done). Then look up what the individual ingredients have been reported to do ALL on their own. Report it accurately.
Then talk about coaching other folks about how to sell it. If you aren’t willing to follow the NrF2 trail past the “supposed” activation of it by Protandim……………then frankly, you are just a snake-oil salesman. Brutal and short and to the point. Have a nice day.
Scott, you are the ignorant one here. There are five US patents on Protandim, and not a single one claims it cures anything. The only patent claims made for Protandim is that it lowers Oxidative Stress and inflammation. Why do you doubt that it activates Nrf2? There are four studies that show that Protandim does just that (search “Nrf2 activation Protandim” on pubmed).
There have been hundreds of peer reviewed studies on all five of Protandim’s ingredients [do a search for any of them on pubmed]. One thing that has been found in these studies is that, by themselves, none of the five ingredients do much to reduce Oxidartive Stress.
Remember, Dr McCord has been studying OS and free radicals since the late 1960s. If any single ingredient could effectively reduce OS, he would have discovered it. It is because nothing really seemed to work that he was willing to give the idea of combining several of them a try when the idea was presented to him by Mr Myhill. Protandim turned out to work better than either of them had expected.
You also misunderstand the synergy aspect. It is not that Protandim works in synergy with Nrf2, it is that the five ingredients work in synergy with each other to activate Nrf2. As for the pros and cons of Nrf2 activation, the large majority of studies published so far indicate that its benefits far outweigh its detrimental effects.
Could you provide links to studies that say Nrf2 activation is not a good thing?
Greg said: “The only patent claims made for Protandim is that it lowers Oxidative (sic) Stress and inflammation.”
(1) Patent claims are worthless — they are not a demonstration of efficacy; (2) there is no evidence whatsoever that Protandim reduces inflammation; (3) it is illegal to promote Protandim as an anti-inflammatory
Greg said: “There have been hundreds of peer reviewed studies on all five of Protandim’s ingredients [do a search for any of them on pubmed].”
Did you know it’s also illegal when promoting the product to refer people to research articles that discuss disease states? When you do this, it is considered a disease treatment claim and an extension of the product label. PubMed is not a resource for laypeople or consumer health information. The NIH makes that perfectly clear. PubMed is primarily a resource for scientists who understand the arcane language of science.
Greg said: “One thing that has been found in these studies is that, by themselves, none of the five ingredients do much to reduce Oxidartive Stress.”
Totally false. Green tea and curcumin extracts both have in vitro antioxidant properties, independent of NRF2. This was well established long before LifeVantage started pitching Protandim. This is yet another case of hopping on the bandwagon late and using a misleading scientific angle for marketing purposes.
Greg said: “Remember, Dr McCord has been studying OS and free radicals since the late 1960s. If any single ingredient could effectively reduce OS, he would have discovered it.”
McCord was a dinosaur by the time he hitched his wagon to LifeVantage. He hasn’t been an active researcher for roughly 2 decades now (check his meager publication history, aside from the Protandim studies he slapped his name on). It was also not McCord who formulated Protandim either. It was Myhill (scammer) and Driscoll who did – both non-scientists with no credentials in the field. McCord slapped his name on Protandim in exchange for a multi-million dollar interest in the company. And now he’s toast. You’ll never hear him speak of Protandim again.
Greg said: “…the five ingredients work in synergy with each other to activate Nrf2.”
Not in people they don’t. There’s not a stitch of evidence to support that statement. Just a single shoddy test tube study that the company sponsored. People aren’t test tubes though. At least 2 of the ingredients (curcumin and green tea) were shown in previous independent research reports to activate NRF2 individually; these reports were published long before LifeVantage ever mentioned NRF2 as a potential mechanism for Protandim. LifeVantage simply jumped on the NRF2 story bandwagon as a marketing gimmick.
Greg said: “As for the pros and cons of Nrf2 activation, the large majority of studies published so far indicate that its benefits far outweigh its detrimental effects.”
How would you know? You obviously don’t have a clue how to analyze research papers, nor are you in any position to knowledgeably state what the consensus viewpoint is among scientists regarding NRF2.
Greg said: “Could you provide links to studies that say Nrf2 activation is not a good thing?”
Yes I can. This research report (and others) says that it promotes clogging of the arteries.
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/nrf2_antioxidant_protein_also_promotes_clogging_arteries-75189
How can you, on the one hand, make a definitive conclusion that the majority of studies show that the benefits of NRF2 activation outweigh the detrimental effects, and at the same time, be completely unaware of research showing the contrary? Take a time out please. You’re trying to drown people with misinformation.
There are postive and negative comments posted about Juice Plus. What are the pros and cons of juicing your own vegetables and fruits?
Hi Shirley, Juicing can be healthy but because cleaning juicers can be messy, I like tossing them in a blender instead. That way I also get the fiber which is often removed with juicers.
Here are links to reviews I’ve done on Juice Plus:
http://supplementclarity.com/juice-plus-review-of-research/
http://supplementclarity.com/juice-plus-questions-and-answers/
Here also is a link to the smoothie I usually make for breakfast:
http://supplementclarity.com/quick-easy-smoothie-recipee/
The biggest pro to fruits and vegetables is that you get more broader spectrum of nutrients. That’s true for both juicing and putting them in a blender.
I have a friend who wants me to get into Protandim so have been researching all morning and not really liking what I see – like many other MLM companies I’ve seen or tried, there seems to be a lot more hot air and hype, than cold, hard fact.
@Shirley, on the topic of juicing. I’m 5′ 8″ and was 178lbs. I was shocked to hear my doctor say I was getting close to slipping into the Obese category. Right or wrong, it spurred me into action. I should also add that my total cholesterol has been round 230 for at least a decade (first time I had it checked was early 2000s).
I happened across an Australian guy called Joe Cross who made a video (and later a book) called Fat, Sick & Nearly Dead (http://www.fatsickandnearlydead.com/). I think I watched the movie on Netflix. I didn’t go as hardcore as he did, eating lighter meals at night and allowing some “cheating” in the weekends. Over a 2 1/2 month period I dropped 22lbs and, when I had my cholesterol checked (by a lab) again it had dropped to 183.
So, yes, I’m a big proponent of juicing being good for you. I have no idea what other effects it may have (good or bad), but it helped me.
Just one word of caution (for your tastebuds!!!). If you decide to juice with kale in it, watch what you buy. I got all excited on my first batch and shoved a bunch of what turned out to be very strong tasting kale into it. Yech! Almost undrinkable!! 🙂
Have fun!
Ian S, congratulations on the weight loss! I concur on the kale, I tried a bit too much once also in my Vitamix. Yes, fat sick and nearly dead is on Netflix. Its on my list of movies to watch 🙂
Christopher, LifeVantage has predicated the entire story of Protandim on what they describe as cutting edge conclusive science, and now you tell us that “its about the BUSINESS…and not so much the SCIENCE.” That conflicts sharply with the company’s dogma (although the dogma is and always has been transparent BS, obviously).
Not only does Protandim not “lengthen life”, it’s illegal, a violation of company policy (which the company never enforces), and incredibly irresponsible for you to suggest that it does. So if anyone hasn’t “been trained correctly”, it would appear to be you. And yet here you are offering to counsel others? Tell me why this isn’t a case of the blind leading the blind, as it strongly appears to be.
You have inadvertently solidified the justifiably negative impressions of the product and the company.
Very good information provided here.
I unfortunately out of courtesy and pressure from a friend joined by paying $700 for a distributor kit and corporation (which I never did get any info on) with some protandium products and some “rights” to sell in Canada because it was only available in the USA at that particular time. I purchased only for myself and did not want to push this product upon others for lack of data and me not being convinced.
I don’t like the cheap salesman pitch I received on published data. I had to ship to a p.o. box in the USA and pick up every month. I never consumed any products and simply threw away the many bottles I received. Few months later I tried to stop the autoship or even decrease the quantity the distributor set me up with (only option you had when placing order) that the online system did not allow you to do so. Very Interesting.
However if you wanted to increase the quantity the online system easily allowed you to do so. Even after talking to customer service it was a hassle (had to send email first and then call after they verified it was me) and I had to listen to a huge “lecture” as to the benefits and to stick with minimum order and how I would lose my points etc…. I estimate approx $1000 in losses.
If I had bumped into your article back then I would have adamantly not joined! I find it funny now approx 2 yrs have passed and I am online researching information on another MLM my friend is trying so hard to get me to join!! She also no longer talks about Protandium.
I thank you for bringing to light what is actually published and I’m sure anyone with any common sense will be able to conclude logically the research and the validity of this product, and not to get emotionally involved. It is evident that Wall street sees right through this!
Fact, sorry you went through all of that…
…yet another story about a current distributor actively soliciting another distributor: neither have apparently been trained correctly; neither have been able to understand and learn that its about the BUSINESS (of building a team and a residual income), and not so much the SCIENCE of a great, life-lengthening product. I would be happy to counsel with ANYONE who would like to contact me to discuss same: Christopher / or email
Christopher, I dont think we can prove protandim lengthens life. Sorry but I had to remove your email and phone # because I try to make the comments free from self advertising but you are welcome to share your thoughts here if you like. Question, are you the same Christopher who offered to answer my protandim questions a few months back? Your name looked familiar.
Unintended Consequences………or, how the butterfly flapping its wings in Colorado produced an avalanche in Nepal and killed 7 hikers (fictitious, but you will get my drift below).
Hi,
I kind of decided to “weigh in” my opinions here since a guy I know (who is the king of MLM’s in my neck of the woods) is always trying to get me and others to join the “latest and greatest” MLM discovery in his pursuit of a residual income (so he can lead the easy life and sit on beaches and count his money).
Anyway, Protandim is his latest gig. I was kind of tempted to give it a try, but then I remembered all the other MLM’s he has tried to foist off on me in the past……..so I decided to really look into it – if for no other reason than that I have had blood clots and knew that tumeric was going to create problems for me. I’m not here to bash Protandim, but rather am here to talk about Unintended Consequences.
In October 2010, in the Journal of Artheriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular, a study from the David Geffen School of Medicine was published (read that to be the UCLA School of Medicine – they changed the name after David Geffen granted them $200 million in unrestricted funds) regarding the unintended consequences of everyone pushing to activate the NrF2 protein.
I am listing the gist of that study here:
NrF2 – Antioxident Protein Also Promotes Clogging of Arteries.
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/nrf2_antioxidant_protein_also_promotes_clogging_arteries-75189
as reported in Scientific Blogging, Science 2.0
“However, UCLA scientists writing in “Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology” found that while NrF2 boosted antioxidant properties in an animal model, it also increased the development of artheriosclerosis by raising plasma cholesterol levels cholesterol levels in the arteries.”
“….The development of novel antioxidant therapies is quite important, and this research may help shed light on why treatments affecting this protein may not be as affective as we thought”.
What I infer from the articles and the research paper is that all those “wonderful – some new, some old, some herbal, some not – remedies” (the butterfly) that are out there and their associated companies and some of their associated distributors don’t really care or aren’t interested in researching about the unintended consequences that their products may produce – as long as they are making their money.
What is the sense in decreasing oxidative stress, if in the long run you are going to end up with clogged arteries or in the same “vein” (pardon the pun) (line of thinking) a blood clot, that will end your life faster than oxidative stress?
Scott astutely points out one of the many caveats with supplements like Protandim and the MLM companies that sell them: the products undergo no safety testing whatsoever, yet the distributors plug the products blindly with no regard whatsoever for the consequences, beyond earning a commission.
Research data has shown that activation of NRF2 can in fact have deleterious effects. Similarly, using antioxidant supplements to dampen oxidation in vivo can also have negative consequences, since free radicals serve a variety of important physiological functions (i.e., it’s an oversimplification to say that free radicals = bad).
With regard to the research on Protandim to date, LifeVantage has never even considered oxidative stress in organs/tissues, which is where it matters, but rather used artificially generated oxidative stress ex vivo (by adding the oxidant hydrogen peroxide) in blood plasma samples. This is a non-physiological (unnatural) paradigm. They have shown no evidence that Protandim has an antioxidant effect in tissues (i.e., liver, brain, etc.) or in the cell components where oxidative stress may play a pathophysiological role (i.e., cell cytoplasm, mitochondria, and DNA). They simply measured TBARs (a notoriously unreliable measure of oxidative stress) in plasma and called it a day.
To make matters worse, LifeVantage’s initial oxidative stress clinical study was poorly designed (lacking any and all controls, like randomization, blinding, or a placebo group), was conducted by company insiders, published in a journal for which McCord (an insider) served as an editor, and suffered from numerous flaws in execution (e.g., the subject dropout rate was high and yet this was not adjusted for in the statistical analysis). The study was worthless. When a subsequent, better-designed study examined the effect of Protandim, the results were negative – Protandim did not affect TBARs.
Bottom line – the people behind Protandim use science as an empty shell to deceive people. Their disregard for the welfare of consumers borders on criminal.
A big thank you before I spent another $50 to $100.
David, You’re welcome!