(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
does Dr Maniscalco make this product available through his practice or does he refer to a lifevantage distributor?
Jen,
So by your statement any human who signs up for clinical studies for any cancer protocol is subsequently killed. Excuse me while I phone one of my clients to tell him that he’s dead.
Hey, he can collect on his life insurance!
Here’s what I do know, Vogel. An increasing number of Doctors are putting their patients on it. When my doctor Dr. Benedict Maniscalco, a preeminent yet EXTREMELY conservative Cardiologist here in Tampa put me on it and explained all the scientific reasons as to why I didn’t hesitate as I have hypertension and high cholesterol.
He has also told me that some of his patients who have been on the product longer than 30 days have been able to tolerate significant reduction in their HBP meds.
I happened to have to go to him a month go for some pre-op work and that’s when he put me on the product. Tbar is nothing more than the measurement of oxidation in LDL Cholesterol.
So I did the test and my levels were reduced by over 45%. In addition the significant pain and stiffness I was experiencing as a result of a 3 level cervical discectomy 4 mos ago has disappeared.
He has brought his colleagues in and many of them are advising their clients to take it.
They all say the science shows that the product can reduce the probability of getting atherosclerosis and even reverse it if you have it.
I don’t know your educational background but when doctors who have NO SKIN in the game and specialists I might add recommend it to their patients because they believe the science is there to support it I will listen as I am novice in this area.
On top of that they are reporting and documenting results where PATIENTS are having dosages reduced. He was careful to say that NO ONE has come off the meds yet but he sees a progression where he believes that to be possible with extended use and that time-frame would vary by patient.
I would not call any of this a coincidence. I use the product. It works wonders for me nd I know of MANY other people who say the same thing. Even more important is that Cardiologists are documenting patient progress made everyday. Tht’s pretty strong evidence and that’s what I know.
Not so sure about your “NO SKIN in the game” comment:
http://bigbluecalendar.mhsoftware.com/ViewItem.html?cal_item_id=58921&dtwhen=2456764
“Intro speaker Pro 2 Dr. Benedict S. Maniscalco, M.D. will be speaking about the effects of Oxidative Stress on the human body and the unique alternative that Protandim, Canine Health and TrueScience have to offer. Then we are going to have a special guest speaker who will cover “The company LifeVantage and the answer to these health issues as well as an unparalleled opportunity to make a difference in our world.
Come hear how this can change your life. You must RSVP before coming to this event. THIS EVENT IS FREE!!”
Well that puts an entirely different spin on Steve’s claims doesn’t it Lisa? If Maniscalco made any of the claims that Steve said he did, he is violating US law, given that he is a Protandim distributor.
Notice that Steve omitted this material fact. What a creep!
Steve F said: “Here’s what I do know, Vogel. An increasing number of Doctors are putting their patients on it.”
Prove it. Don’t expect anyone to accept that outrageous claim at face value.
Steve F said: “When my doctor Dr. Benedict Maniscalco, a preeminent yet EXTREMELY conservative Cardiologist here in Tampa put me on it and explained all the scientific reasons as to why I didn’t hesitate as I have hypertension and high cholesterol.
Again, prove that he “put you on it”. If he did, it might qualify as malpractice.
Steve F said: “He has also told me that some of his patients who have been on the product longer than 30 days have been able to tolerate significant reduction in their HBP meds.”
If he told you that: (a) prove it; (b) he’s full of crap.
Steve F said: “Tbar is nothing more than the measurement of oxidation in LDL Cholesterol.”
Wrong. The TBAR test does not distinguish oxidized cholesterol from other oxidized lipids, let alone LDL vs HDL.
Steve F said: “So I did the test and my levels were reduced by over 45%.
The TBAR test is not officered in clinical medicine and has no recognized value as a diagnostic test. Nothing more that that needs to be said.
Steve F said: “In addition the significant pain and stiffness I was experiencing as a result of a 3 level cervical discectomy 4 mos ago has disappeared.
Great. It couldn’t conceivably have anything at all to do with Protandim, aside from the placebo effect.
Steve F said: “He has brought his colleagues in and many of them are advising their clients to take it.
BS! You can’t/won’t even try to prove it because you know it’s not true.
Steve F said: “They all say the science shows that the product can reduce the probability of getting atherosclerosis and even reverse it if you have it.”
(a) Who’s they? (b) “They” are dead wrong. Not a single clinical study on Protandim for the prevention of atherosclerosis has ever been conducted.
Steve F said: “I would not call any of this a coincidence.”
I would not call any of what you wrote worthy of serious consideration because you provided no evidence whatsoever.
Steve F said: “Even more important is that Cardiologists are documenting patient progress made everyday. Tht’s pretty strong evidence and that’s what I know.”
No, they aren’t documenting it at all. There’s only nameless voices on the internet, like yours, whispering these idiotic rumors.
Lisa, would a prominent doctor risk his reputation to promote a product that he was not quite sure was effective at doing what it claimed?
Greg B.
Yes, apparently he is willing to risk his reputation. He is in the twilight of his career, as was McCord when he sold out. Looks like he and McCord were at Duke at the same time. Probably just a coincidence.
Actually, it is not a risk, since Protandim does exactly what it is claimed to do–lower Oxidative Stress. As for Dr McCord, his reputation remains unsullied, except to negative-minded cynics like yourself. Among real scientists in the medical and biochemistry fields he remains highly respected.
Greg, why is that you make such intellectually dishonest comments? Steve claimed that this doctor/distributor Maniscalco is telling people that Protandim can treat or prevent atherosclerosis and hypertension. Such claims are both unfounded and illegal.
Thus, obviously, this doctor is risking his reputation. He’s clearly a dishonest charlatan abusing his position of authority for money.
I think the question is not, does it lower the measurement for oxidative stress but rather does that translate into actual benefits. That is the one step they have NOT done any studies on. One has to ask why not, isn’t that the next most logical study.
They have (distributors) just simply taken the next step without actually having done the comprehensive study (meaning more than a handful of testimonials), and said a+b must = c without empirical evidence.
I’m sure you need to keep telling yourself that, Greg. McCord’s reputation was sullied as soon as he allowed Lifevantage to lie (for years) about him being the “inventor” of Protandim. It only got worse from there.
Dr. Oz’s reputation has been sullied from all the crap he promotes as “miracle” products too. Dr. Oz had a much higher profile than McCord (or Dr. Maniscalco), yet he sold out for fame and fortune. Dr. Oz was chastised by the US Senate just a few days ago.
I’m not here to defend Dr Oz, but I understand much of his problem is that makers of diet products have been claiming he has endorsed their products when he really hasn’t.
But Dr Oz is a red herring; Dr McCord has never gone on TV to sell stuff, or make a name for himself.
As for Dr McCord being the “inventor” of Protandim, both Dr McCord and the company have long ago admitted that such phraseology was less than accurate, and in recently produced promotional material such a claim is no longer made (though some of the older stuff is still floating around).
But he did have enough input into the development of Protandim that he was invited to add his name to the patent. So it is not like he was just paid to hawk the stuff like some old, out-of-work celebrity.
Where do you get the idea that Dr McCord has a sullied reputation among scientists? Can you produce any cases where he has done bad science, or been shown to engage in questionable scientific practices?
Do you know of a single knowledgeable biochemist in the world who would not welcome an opportunity to sit down and talk shop with Dr McCord, or get his input on a research project?
Greg B said: “I’m not here to defend Dr Oz, but I understand much of his problem is that makers of diet products have been claiming he has endorsed their products when he really hasn’t.”
The problem with Oz is that he is a shallow dick with no compunction at all about misrepresenting inert worthless products as “miraculous” in the interest of his TV ratings/revenue stream. He has caused incalculable harm.
Greg B said: “But Dr Oz is a red herring; Dr McCord has never gone on TV to sell stuff, or make a name for himself.”
Good grief man! You know full well that Protandim kicked off in 2005 with McCord going on ABC Primetime to do a shamelessly misleading advertorial for Protandim, which every distributor since has been encouraged to use as a marketing tool.
Since then he has done media interviews, widely distributed promo videos, on-stage performances at distributor meetings, and shoddy misleading company-sponsored research — all for promotional purposes; all leveraging his meager reputation; all of it done in the interest of furthering his multi-million dollar position as a company executive/insider/shareholder, who received a 6-figure annual salary, a 50-cent commission on every bottle sold, and an unscheduled $1.7 million golden-parachute bailout package.
Compared to Oz, McCord is much more of a small potatoes conman, but they are both cut from the same cloth – remorselessly self serving and incredibly irresponsible.
Greg B said: “As for Dr McCord being the ‘inventor’ of Protandim, both Dr McCord and the company have long ago admitted that such phraseology was less than accurate, and in recently produced promotional material such a claim is no longer made (though some of the older stuff is still floating around).”
That’s a very roundabout way of confirming exactly what we’ve said all along – they lied about McCord being the inventor. They didn’t own up to it until they got mud on their faces when the lie was exposed by bloggers.
Greg B said: “But he did have enough input into the development of Protandim that he was invited to add his name to the patent. So it is not like he was just paid to hawk the stuff like some old, out-of-work celebrity.”
Finish the rest of the story. McCord declined because he said that his contribution to the product’s development was not substantial enough to warrant credit as a co-inventor.
http://static.protandimscams.com/images/mccord-didnt-invent-protandim.jpg
In other words, yes, it was pretty much exactly as you described – i.e., a B-list biochemistry celebrity, in the twilight of his career, “just paid to hawk the stuff”. That’s pretty much how Paul Myhill, the inventor of Protandim, described it: McCord was hired for marketing purposes because of his “impeccable background”.
http://www.protandimscams.com/lifevantage-and-dr-joe-mccord-lie-about-the-creation-of-protandim/
Greg B said: “Where do you get the idea that Dr McCord has a sullied reputation among scientists? Can you produce any cases where he has done bad science, or been shown to engage in questionable scientific practices?”
He doesn’t have a “reputation among scientists” per se. His narrow area of expertise is of such limited interest that 99.99% of scientists wouldn’t even know of his existence, let alone care. I can show you at least 3 dozen examples where he has done bad science – pretty much everything on Protandim that bears his name, which comprises the vast majority of the studies on Protandim published to date. He recently parted ways with LifeVantage and no longer holds an active academic position anywhere. He’s off the radar now and will fade into memory with his millions, made at the expense of consumers who he helped to dupe.
Greg B said: “Do you know of a single knowledgeable biochemist in the world who would not welcome an opportunity to sit down and talk shop with Dr McCord, or get his input on a research project?
Yes, almost all of them.
Do you know how to say anything that isn’t misleading, factually incorrect, or an outright lie?
well give Greg a break these distributors are told to ignore the smears on the net to never mind, nothing to see here, move along these aren’t the droids you seek attitude about protandium from the deniers because they are making BIG money off of what one speaker said and I quote, “there are a lot of sick old people out there”……..I think that says it all…….yet my sister heard that and is still trying to convince me to do it, they are the “true believers”.
She is a very sweet person who just wants to help people, they seem to target Christians I don’t know if by accident or design…..frankly I think the whole thing is disgusting.
“I’m not here to defend Dr Oz, but I understand much of his problem is that makers of diet products have been claiming he has endorsed their products when he really hasn’t.”
That wasn’t the only problem. HE was saying, on his show, that certain products were “miracle” diet pills…..without scientific evidence to back it up.
“But Dr Oz is a red herring; Dr McCord has never gone on TV to sell stuff, or make a name for himself.”
You asked if a respectable doctor would risk their reputation to promote something which is not scientifically proven. The answer is yes, and I pointed to Dr. Oz as an example.
Dr. McCord wasn’t on television selling it only because LV doesn’t use TV ads. His face was all over promotional materials, and he was in the Primetime piece.
He was hired solely to try and add credibility to the company and the product. LV’s 2005 annual report spells it out: “Dr. McCord is a highly-regarded expert in the field. His joining of Lifeline Nutraceuticals not only adds industry credibility for our technology, but it also sets the stage for the commercialization of numerous advances in SOD anti-oxidant therapies.”
http://sec.edgar-online.com/lifevantage-corp/10ksb-annual-report-small-business-issuers/2005/10/13/section15.aspx
Hmm..not a peep about him helping to formulate their only product (at the time of that filing).
“As for Dr McCord being the “inventor” of Protandim, both Dr McCord and the company have long ago admitted that such phraseology was less than accurate, and in recently produced promotional material such a claim is no longer made (though some of the older stuff is still floating around).”
Phfft! LOL….less than accurate??? Bold faced lie, is more accurate. How big of them to admit it after it was exposed.
“But he did have enough input into the development of Protandim that he was invited to add his name to the patent. So it is not like he was just paid to hawk the stuff like some old, out-of-work celebrity.”
Oh please, they probably begged him….again, to try and add credibility to the product. He most definitely was paid to hawk a product. He’s laughing all the way to the bank.
“Where do you get the idea that Dr McCord has a sullied reputation among scientists? Can you produce any cases where he has done bad science, or been shown to engage in questionable scientific practices?”
Yes, the research he’s done on a product called Protandim, perhaps you’ve heard of it. Shoddy, irrelevant research.
“Do you know of a single knowledgeable biochemist in the world who would not welcome an opportunity to sit down and talk shop with Dr McCord, or get his input on a research project?”
Not really, but how would I know that anyway? Do you know of any who are clamoring to involve him in research? What’s he working on now?
Greg B said: “Actually, it is not a risk, since Protandim does exactly what it is claimed to do–lower Oxidative Stress.”
Actually what they claim is that it lowers TBARS by 40%, but you know that’s a lie because the scientific data refuting the claim has been explained to you several times already. The original clinical study that reported a decrease in TBARS, and which was used as the basis for promotional claims, was McCord’s poorly-designed error-plagued study published in 2006.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16413416
The results of that study were subsequently negated by a much better designed clinical study published in 2012, which showed that Protandim had no effect on TBARS levels.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22268125
There was also an abstract (a fairly worthless summary of a an unpublished study; and a poorly designed one in this case) posted recently which showed that the Japanese version of Protandim, which substitutes piperine for ashwaganda, produced only a 22% decrease in TBARS levels, while a 4-ingredient version of Protandim (which omits ashwaganda altogether) produced a 43% INCREASE in TBARS levels. You can be certain that the company is not disclosing to Japanese consumers that they are being offered a 50% less effective, inferior version of Protandim.
http://www.fasebj.org/gca?allch=&submit=Go&gca=fasebj%3B28%2F1_Supplement%2FLB399
The best evidence to date shows that Protandim DOES NOT reliably lower TBARS or oxidative stress; and even if it did lower TBARS levels, there is no reason to think that such an effect would be indicative of the product having medicinal benefits. TBARS is not a recognized medical diagnostic test and it is not performed clinically in any hospital/clinic in the country; it has no recognized clinical value.
You do know what it takes to get actual humans involved in studies where they have to kill the subject to study the area of interest? something to keep in mind when you use that as a big critique of peer reviewed research. would you sign up if they said hey we want to see what this does to the electrical pulses of your heart but we have to remove it at the end of the study? I doubt it. That is why they use other mammals with similar molecular make ups. that always makes me laugh when I see that remark.
Jen, who said study electrical pulses in human hearts? Lets do a big study were Protandim actually reduces TBARS – or lengthens telomeres, or improves SOD or glutathone levels. What I suggest isn’t that hard to do. No need to make things difficult.
Joe, Jen was not speaking specifically of Protandim, but in response to those on this blog who have repeatedly downplayed studies which are not human clinical trials. As Jen points out, there are some types of studies where using human subjects would not work, where only animals would be possible (unless you think Dr Mengele’s methods are acceptable).
If animal and test-tube studies were not important they would not be performed. Can you name ANY product that did not employ such methods in its testing? Testing on animals is a good idea; if the product turns out to be harmful, better a few mice or guinea pigs get sick or die than humans.
Greg, oh ok, thanks for the clarification. Well, to respond I’d only say that sure, research usually-and rightfully -starts with mice etc. and then progresses to people if favorable outcomes are observed. Protandim research, on the other hand, started with human trials and then went backwards to mouse and test tube studies, where it has basically languished in for most of its existence. The topics that makes up the bulk of protandim research would be better served using people.
Joe, the first study was done just to see if and how much Protandim lowers Oxidative Stress in humans. The studies following have been to either learn more about how it does so, or to see if lowering OS would have an effect on certain conditions.
Yes, more human subject studies would be useful, and there are quite likely some under way now, but since the current evidence is overwhelmingly positive that Protandim works as claimed, and no evidence so far has arisen that it is harmful to people (unless they are allergic to something in it), I have no problem using it myself, and recommending it to others.
Greg, whether it reduces oxidative stress or not, that first study is still not a justification to promote it to people with out better evidence. Also, since most of the “overwhelmingly positive” research is on non-humans, which again just makes me want to see more people reserach. You said other studies are likely under way now. do you have any firm evidence of this?
Holy cats…..Lifevantage KILLED the people in the human studies they completed?????!!!! No wonder they haven’t done any more than the three studies.
Here we go again. Greg B. has been schooled on “animal/test tube vs human trials” ad nauseam (and warned not to bring it up again as if it’s never been addressed). Jen apparently hasn’t read any of the comments on the subject and is clueless as to how research is conducted. Is this what they are teaching at “Lifevantage University” in order to justify the lack of human trials? Seek out a better education. Good grief.
Lisa nails it. This site and others have demonstrated countless time over that the people involved in LifeVantage are, across the board, either gullible, desperate, or just plain stupid. Oh yeah, and incredibly obnoxious too.
Greg B said: “If animal and test-tube studies were not important they would not be performed.”
If animal and test-tube studies were important the FDA would allow companies to base product (efficacy and safety) claims solely on the results of such studies. They don’t, and the reason they don’t is because such studies are not a reliable predictor of responses in humans. This is a very basic fact that’s been explained to you many times over, yet for some odd reason you are stubbornly unwilling to concede the point.
Greg B said: “Testing on animals is a good idea; if the product turns out to be harmful, better a few mice or guinea pigs get sick or die than humans.”
Funny you should say that because the first study LifeVantage published (in 2006) was in humans, not animals. Since that time, as Joe points out, they’ve gone backwards and conducted only animal/test tube studies, with the exception of the one well-designed clinical trial in 2012 that demonstrated Protandim’s ineffectiveness in reducing oxidative stress (TBARS).
To date, they have never conducted thorough safety studies in humans, so the possibility exists that the product is harmful to people who take it regularly. I sure as hell wouldn’t advise anyone to gamble on ingesting a product that comes from an organization known for chronically lying to consumers.
Why a moronic premise to suggest that clinical research necessitates killing the subjects. As for measuring electrical impulses in the heart, there’s this thing called an electrocardiogram. Have you been living in a cave?
I believe I can contribute a reasonable review of the process of LV and Protandim.
1. I believe (which means nothing) in big government and conspiracies. FDA, pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, in addition to oil companies, EPA, IRS, etc are out to keep control of society.
2. Humans survived centuries without ‘prescription’ drugs. Automobile tires have been invented that last millions of miles, engines have been developed that have achieved 100’s of mpg. Government cannot let these inventions go to the masses.
3. If it were possible that a nutritional supplement could do what many protandim customers/distributors claim, why would Lifevantage want to pay and perform actual human tests over years of time? If these tests proved conclusively valid, I believe the government would step in and shut this whole process down with lies, regulations, and with fines and taxes that would render Lifevantage bankrupt. With valid results, the possibilities it would create cannot be allowed. The billions of dollars lost in pharmaceuticals, revenue in the medical field and jobs, the billions lost in medical insurance. Impossible.
The best thing for business in a product that actually works (if in fact it does) is to provide enough documentation to start enough belief in it so people will actually use it. After that, let the people provide the proof. Like one blogger said something to the effect of, “I don’t care if it is a placebo, if my problem of this or that is gone after taking protandim, then I will continue paying for a placebo.”
By going about their business in this way, they can slowly grow, make a lot of money, help many distributors make a lot, and provide an amazing product (of which cannot be proven except through private testimonials).
In the end, because they are publicly owned, they will be driven to always show a profit. This leads to adding new products to increase revenue, and in future desperate attempts to show a profit, decrease the quality of their products in order to reduce costs and add to their profits. Eventually, sell the company for billions, walk away and whoever profited in the process, good for them.
Also the controversies in who created protandim or contributed to it, FDA approved or not, chief officers being fired and replaced, lies, etc. This is common in all business, big or small.
We will never know, in our society and with government regulations and restrictions, if this product is what it claims to be. Both sides, pro or con, I believe are valid and do not necessarily contradict each other. The cons want governmental proof, Lifevantage growth is better with only the ‘proof’ or testimonials of the ones who actually take the product.
I hope the best for those who believe they are heathier and those who can add a little or lot of income to provide for their families and/or charity and lifestyle through Lifevantage and Protandim.
I agree with everything you say, except for the decreasing the quality of the products part. If LV did that, then Protandim would stop working, and then people would stop buying it, and profits would fall. Producing products of the highest quality is one of the guiding principles of LV. As for new products, have you seen the new True Science skin care products. They have only been out a couple of months, and already many people are seeing great results.
Thanks GregB.
Yes, naturally, in true conscience, one would expect them to maintain their high standards of quality. I’m just speaking of the natural inclinations and pressures to maintain profits. Many companies have fallen due to product degradation in order to save money and please investors.
True Science may be a great product also. I remember back in the 80’s I took a nutritional supplement called Nutrilite from Amway. It was very expensive and purchased mainly by distributors and some customers. The only boasting Amway made was from their own statements and distributor statements. There were no outside studies or, for that matter, any outside interest in its ability to provide some health benefits. I never experienced or knew anyone who experienced a valid improvement of any condition. Everyone justified their expensive purchases too, “I believe what they say about Nutrilite. I know it is better for me because they say it is”. Talk about blind faith. This is why a huge percent of their sales was to distributers alone since they had to maintain a certain amount of personal purchases to get their commissions.
With Lifevantage, it appears there are a greater percentage of customers than distributers as I’ve seen by those who buy directly from Amazon rather than through a distributer. This speaks highly about the results of those customers. They certainly are not buying it because they profit financially from it and to continue to pay monthly for something that hasn’t given them results is uncommon.
That could be them most illogical threadbare comment I’ve seen yet, and the bar for inane comments was a high one.
You’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The facts contradict virtually every word you wrote.
Great comment and I couldn’t agree more. When buying any nutritional supplement, will you find any scientific studies or FDA approval? We buy from emotional attachment to the products claims, or faith in the salespeople, which may lead to continued use due to our own personal experience with said product.
Honestly, it is a know fact that diet pills are a complete scam yet billions are spent yearly in peoples hopes that maybe this one is the one until they move to the next one claiming the same thing.
We are a gullible people and there are too many claiming ‘facts’. It is really left up to our experience which for some, have led to serious consequences but for the most part, just ineffective products.
Greg,
I’m not attacking his credentials as a doctor Greg. I’m asking whether you can trust everything that comes out of his mouth based on:
http://scienceblogs.com/corpuscallosum/2008/10/21/block-african-witchcraft-curse/
I sure wouldn’t. Is he your shining example of the medical professionals coming over in support of Protandim??
So now you are attacking Dr Marvin’s religious beliefs? He is a serious Christian, and as such he recognizes the reality of spiritual warfare. Thus his call for prayer to counter what he saw as demonic forces. Now you may have different religious convictions, but does that mean Dr Marvin’s are wrong, or that by holding them he is unqualified to speak on matters related to his 50-year professional career? I happen to share his faith, so I am more inclined to trust him than I would someone who had no place in his life for God.
Also, did you know that Dr Marvin gives all his profits as a distributor to the support of an orphanage in Tanzania? He is not in this to get rich, but because he has seen Protandim improve the health of numerous people.
Look you guys, Dr Martin is using his position as a doctor (and a man of faith) just because it makes him credible, he says he is giving his profits away and maybe he is and maybe he isn’t, I’d like to see a copy of his tax records. My brother, who, is also a doctor thinks it’s a marketing scam.
If you think about it, it relies mostly on 4 or 5 studies, ALL, EVERYONE OF THEM, have two of the same guys doing research and who also sit on the board. That is a glaring conflict of interest.
Listen I think there is some evidence that it lowers T- cells but you have to ask the question, now that we know that, can we jump to the next most obvious thing…..How is that beneficial, if at all. They never say that the relationship between their product lowering T-cells and that being of a benefit has been studied or peer reviewed. They draw a lot of conclusions from what is already known about T-cells but there is no research in that area. You must ask why.
In addition they make connections between things that may or may not be true. For instance there isn’t one study specifically or generally on animals, but since they use white mice in all their studies they have taken the next step and endorsed it for use in animals but they haven’t actually looked at the specifics just the generalities.
I’m sure you are all aware that some kinds of animals can take certain medications that are beneficial while others if they took it would find it toxic. Classic example is aspirin, dogs can take it under certain circumstances and it will kill a cat, I don’t know what happens in mice.
Be wary of people who use faith as a credential, there is a difference between having faith that a product works and reality of whether or not it does. My sister and her husband are people of faith as well and the meeting that we went to those people were also very religious. I feel as though there is a connection between the religion part and faith.
That said if the stuff works for you and the people you know and you are making money, then awesome, use it, for me it’s a waste of money.
Claudia said: “If you think about it, it relies mostly on 4 or 5 studies”
If you include test tube and animal studies it’s actually about a dozen published to date, although you;re probably right that they only hype up about half of them at most; the rest are used just so that they can confuse people with a impressive looking but essentially meaningless stack of paper.
As for human clinical trials — the only studies that really matter — they rely on only one (the poorly-designed COI-tainted study from 2006), which showed positive results, while ignoring the other (the well-designed study from 2012), which showed negative results.
In other words, not only are the studies plagued by conflict of interest, the company is also guilty of cherry-picking.
Claudia said: “Listen I think there is some evidence that it lowers T- cells…How is that beneficial, if at all?”
I think you meant to say TBARS. It’s a crude and unreliable biochemical test for oxidative stress. But the other part of the question you raise is a good one. The answer is that TBARS is not a test that is used in clinical practice and it is not a reliable surrogate marker for general health or for any disease.
What’s worse is that they didn’t even measure TBARS in tissue (where oxidative stress matters most) but rather in blood plasma (where it’s largely irrelevant), and in all cases they generated oxidative stress artificially using plasma exposed to hydrogen peroxide in a test tube (i.e., in vitro oxidative stress, which is even more irrelevant/non-physiological).
Your other comments and sentiments were spot on.
yes T-Bars, sorry. My sister teaches these seminars now and because she is so sincere and really believes that I’m sure she comes across very well.
They used to be Mona Vie distributors if that tells you anything. She gives my parents these supplements and my dad died last year and my mom is still losing what memory she had, so no miracle cures for them.
When thinking back on the seminar they had a number of examples of miracle cures of people taking Protandim with life threatening disease. I just worry that someone will take some of the promises to heart and a loved one will die and a lawsuit will take this company down and it wouldn’t surprise me since they promise such lofty outcomes.
Greg, first of all you acted like an ass by accusing Scott of living in a “fantasy land” simply because you were either too incompetent or too unmotivated to find the corroborative evidence of Marvin’s statement on the internet. Or more likely you knew the evidence was there and simply chose to pretend that it didn’t exist.
Now that evidence has been presented to you, instead of apologizing for your mistake and abrasive comment, you’re doubling down and trying to make this an issue of religious freedom. Let me remind you that that Marvin’s comment was that he was very “concerned” about what he “learned” regarding “Barack Obama’s family in Kenya” and that he was “calling a special prayer meeting in his home to pray against the witchcraft curses attempted by them against John McCain and Sarah Palin”.
That idiotic belief doesn’t line up with any religion I’m aware of aside from maybe Wiccanism or Santeria. What it really sounds like to me is not a religious belief but simply the ravings a cranky old racist with a screw loose. He’s legally entitled to hold those beliefs, no matter how crazy or offensive, but he is not entitled to be respected for them.
What really staggers the imagination, however, is that you and LifeVantage would parade a bigoted lunatic like this as a spokesperson for the product. Aside from that, Marvin is one of the company’s worst offenders when it comes to making illegal and deceptive medical claims about the effects of Protandim, an issue which you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge.
Inadvertently Greg, your steadfast refusal to recognize Marvin’s obvious shortcomings confirms everyone’s worst assumptions about LifeVantage and Protandim. Given that Marvin is such a morally repugnant individual, it’s an incredibly poor business decision to use him as a spokesperson and to misrepresent him as a respected authority, unless the core target market for Protandim consists mainly of crazy old racist coots who believe that Obama’s family in Kenya is placing voodoo curses on his political opponents, and I would have to assume that this would be a very, very small fraction of consumers.
yep Joe I like the whole moment of clarity, my brother in law said that bothered him too and he wasn’t sure why he said it……he mentioned he was tired I think it was the short way around the barn……
Greg said: Pablo, there is a growing number of medical professionals who are endorsing Protandim.
My biggest problem with that statement is that it is unqualified. It is easy to throw that out there and have people believe it without providing any substantiation backing it up. Is that what you tell your down-line? No………. don’t mention the doctor Marvin (what-ever his name is). Ever been to his website Greg? Apparently Kenyan witch doctors cast a hex on McCain and that is why Obama won the election. REALLY??? REALLY??? Is this one of the growing number of medical professionals you are talking about?
If doctors (unless retired) are promoting Protandim (a very un-researched product) and are doing it without that research firmly in place, and are prescribing it………..then they are seriously in violation of the Hippocratic Oath – which boiled down says “do no harm”. Because it is an herbal supplement, no one can “come back on them” if something goes wrong, unlike the pharmaceutical companies.
The other problem I have with that statement is whether those medical professionals have actually done any research into Protandim or whether they are just blindly believing there up-lines.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for financial freedom, but I’m not willing to sell folks into a product that (according to the research I’ve seen) only work on mice and rats or cells (of mice and rats).
Scott, i don’t know what fantasy land you are living in, but i just went to Dr Marvin’s website (docmarvin.com), and there is not a single word about Kenyan witch doctors, John McCain, or any election. Here is Dr Marvin’s bio:
“Dr. Marvin received a degree in Pharmacy and a Doctor of Medicine from the University of Kansas, and has now been in the practice of medicine for 50 years. After spending 18 years in general practice, he served five years as Assistant Professor in the Department of Family Practice at the University of Kansas Medical Center. He then returned to private practice.
In 1988 he was asked to serve as Department Chairman of Family, Community and Geriatric Medicine at Oral Roberts University School of Medicine in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Dr. & Mrs. Marvin returned to the Kansas City area in 1993. He also was host and teacher of a radio program “What’s Up Doc?”
Dr. Marvin is now retired from the practice of traditional medicine, but maintains his membership in American Academy of Family Physicians and American Medical Association, and is also an elected member on the Board of Regents for Oxford Graduate School.”
In light of these facts, are you still going to say Dr Marvin is not a highly respected medical professional?
Greg B said: “Scott, i don’t know what fantasy land you are living in, but i just went to Dr Marvin’s website (docmarvin.com), and there is not a single word about Kenyan witch doctors, John McCain, or any election.”
No need to be abrasive. It has been well documented that Norman did in fact make such a statement. It was quoted by his buddy and fellow Pretendumb distributor Jim Bramlett back in 2008:
“Minutes ago I spoke with friend Dr. Norman G. Marvin, M.D. and he is so concerned at what he has learned about Barack Obama’s family in Kenya that he is calling a special prayer meeting in his home to pray against the witchcraft curses attempted by them against John McCain and Sarah Palin.”
http://tadhg.com/wp/2008/10/23/without-religion-we-wouldnt-have-this/
Greg B said: “In light of these facts, are you still going to say Dr Marvin is not a highly respected medical professional?”
Not only would I say that he is most definitely not a respected medical professional, I’d go a step further and say he’s a lying senile old coot with a broken moral compass who illegally markets LifeVantage’s junk as a cure for diseases. He is one of the worst offenders on the internet in that regard. Smarten up Greg. It’s time for you to put down that can of whitewash.
I mentioned that my sister and her husband are ALL IN for Protandim and are successful distributors however some of the things they say just are not backed up by much of anything. I took it for a few months.
I have RA and some other auto immune problems and I noticed absolutely no change, my sister actually thought that if I took the stuff I could get off my meds which include immune suppressants They took me to a meeting when they were in town trying to get me to sign up as a distributor, the guy giving the presentation was interesting but what he said has stuck with me ever since then…….
“….there are going to be lots, and lots of sick old people these are your potential customers….”
I took that statement to mean, going back to the Wizard of Oz, never mind the man behind the curtain, or as in Star Wars, move along nothing to see here, move along.
Claudi. wow. Amazing he would say that. Love the star wars tie in 🙂
Claudi, Joe and everybody.
Pure Bernie Madoff :“….there are going to be lots, and lots of sick old people, these are your potential customers….”
Let the buyer beware. These are tough economic times, for many folk. Many unscrupulous will say anything in effort to separate you from your money.
I know, to some, this may sound archaic, but IF you ask Jesus Christ, just who-is-who? and who can be trusted? and IF you ask HIM to please remove the who-not-to-be trusted, HE will whip those ‘money changers’ out of your life. Their fall, may even be so bad, that even though they ripped you off, you will indeed, feel sorry for them.
Bad Joe, ND
Thank you Joe for writing an intellectually-based review of the “studies” concerning Protandim.
Unfortunately, too many of your critics have misinterpreted your desire to know more by questioning the quality of the proof marketed by LifeVantage as a bias against the company. However, they fail to realize that unanswered questions always tend to create uncertainty and, therefore, it is the failure to have provided essential answers which undermines the integrity of the product.
While being mistreated with antibiotics for a virus at a medical clinic, a licensed medical doctor touted his youthful appearance due to the alleged benefits of Protandim and wound up taking more time to explain the benefits of eliminating free radicals than properly diagnosing my condition. Hence, I looked into the product and read your article.
While your comments all have academic validity, there appear to be other questions, founded in logic and common sense, concerning the almost too good to be true assertions of LifeVantage regarding its product.
If this is such a health breakthrough, why hasn’t the general medical community come out in support and overwhelmingly recommended this product for all to use? If this is such a worthwhile product, why use a closed distribution system with sales by believers? If the product had inherent worth, buyers need not be persuaded by believers in a distribution scheme that tends to raise the price and reward those who are allegedly reaping benefits from use, but now stand to achieve monetary gain from marketing the product. If the product was that good, wouldn’t word of mouth of actual benefits from personal testimonials be sufficient to energize the public to make purchases.
Like you, I am not saying that the product has no benefit. However, there are a lot of questions that these types of products always leave unanswered and, therefore, stay off my shelves. I am hopeful that, one day, if Protandim is true to its word, all of the world will benefit from the reduction of free radicals due to a simple pill.
Certainly, with the many better health claims made by various products on our free market, it would appear that we have the ability to live perfectly healthy lives. Of course, intelligence makes us understand the difference between reality and hope, upon which many a company prey.
Pablo, you are very welcome.
Pablo, there is a growing number of medical professionals who are endorsing Protandim. The reason more have not is primarily because they haven’t heard of it, or they have a bias against non-traditional methods. Many doctors actually believe that if a product is not an FDA-approved drug it can not work. At one time most doctors thought the germ theory of disease was nonsense. But the medical profession will come around. As for why network marketing to distribute Protandim, it’s called capitalism! Do you have a problem with making a profit?
Greg, I completely agree with you. The FDA is strange in a sense that they approve aspartame in beverages and fluoride in our toothpastes and the water that you drink. And yet they will not approve things that will not benefit preventative medicine, but you know there is a definite conspiracy in regards to the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. Makes it very curious to me.
I’m a healthcare worker myself and I do see the flaws in the system. And at times it does sadden me, in that the patients are not getting the best care possible. Money is spent on quick fixes, and to just have the patient to keep on coming back over and over again. But people need to take more responsibility on their health instead of wishing for a better healthcare system, cause you know there’s nothing you can do to change the system (unless your the president!)
And due to this dilemma (to me), it’s motivating to not only take charge of my health but my life and my finances, and I’m getting into network marketing as well. I’m wanna have great health and great financial freedom!
Initially I though “no I will not leave a message”, however, most of the points you bring up are very interesting. I’ve been taking Protadim since March 2014 and although I have noticed a difference in my overall well-being, I also noticed the first time I took the pill that I feel pressure that is similar to sinus pressure.
I sorta of pushed the thought to the back of mind, but this pass Sunday before Memorial Day, I took my pill and within an hour my head was spinning. I had to leave home but was really unsteady and not sure how this was going to end. I just felt as if my blood pressure had shot up. It was until hours later after I ate that I begin to feel a little better. This is the only thing that makes me nervous about the Protadim. Debating now on whether I will continue to use it.
Cecelia, happy you decided to leave a message 🙂 Do you always feel that way when you take protandim? if not then maybe it was just a fluke. I was feeling somewhat dizzy myself the last few days (I dont take Protandim. It also sounds like what you experienced was worse than what I felt). I wondered if I was just fighting something off or maybe it was the pollen? If you always feel that way when you take Protandim, then Id think their may be a link. if not, then it just could be a coincidence?
That said here are are few suggestions of what I would do in this situation.
1. Why dont you get off of Protandim for a week or so and see if you feel better.
2. Show Protandim to your pharmacist. she/he can look up the ingredients and let you know if it may be related to your symptoms or interacted with any medications you may be taking (Prescription or non prescription).
3. I’d also see if you can get your BP checked by your doctor. Head spinning and feelings of blood pressure shooting up usually get my attention. I’d feel better if you at least did that.
keep me posted on how you are doing Cecelia!
Cecelia, did you take your Protandim with a meal? That is recommended, in part because your reaction sometimes happens when it is taken alone. As Joe says, this was probably a one-time thing, but do follow his advice.
might be the green tea which is a stimulant, it is used in many diet supplements.
I agree with you Lisa, the more I am reading about Protandim, it makes me question about the company and the products. I am user of Usana Health Products, and that company has been around since 1992, the statements and ideas from Protandim do have definite similarities to our Company.
And if I don’t mind sharing my opinion, if the products from Lifevantage are proclaimed that they work, How come the product is not in the Physician’s Desk Reference? If it is that good, how come it is not pharmaceutical grade? I’m not sure I would support a company that also tests on animals. Just sharing my opinion.
I could be wrong, but I think the Physicians Desk Reference is for prescription drugs, not supplements. Is the an edition of PDR for supplement products?
Yes, the PDR is for prescription drugs, and yes, there is also PDR edition for supplements, and herbs as well. But the main reason why I bring this up is because, there are a ton of supplement companies out there. My question I like to ask is, How do they manufacture their products? Where do they get their ingredients from? Where do they manufacture their products? Is whatever is on the label, 100% guaranteed to be in the product/bottle? How do I know I am getting the purest form of these ingredients?
nd that’s why being qualified to be in the PDR, means that not only company itself but the products, have gone through rigorous testing, and excruciating, pain-staking monitoring or “regulations” that make them qualified as “pharmaceutical grade”.
That also brings up another point, Why do you go to the pharmacy to pick up your prescriptions, like for instance narcotics or antibiotics? It’s not just because the doctor wrote you a prescription, it’s because you know that meds will work.
The pharmaceutical medications are “regulated”. Not only to mention the fact that Usana’s facility is an FDA registered facility, also means that they have gone above and beyond what is expected for a nutritional supplement company.
The FDA doesn’t really have a high standards for the way how nutritional supplementation companies make their products. For instance, let’s just say that if a company sends out their products to a 3rd party vendor to make their products. Let’s not forget they are also making products for other companies as well.
The FDA doesn’t really have a standard for how often they should check their batches of the products. Another example, let’s also say that this company sent a quantity of 100 of “blank”, that 3rd party vendor will only do “spot checks” out of the entire 100 of “blank”, so that 3rd party vendor will probably only do 5 spot checks out of the 100 products that were made. So that means that 5% of that batch was checked.
Anyways, the reason why I’m going off on this topic is because, I like to question the quality of all the products that are made. For me, makes me very curious as to, Is the consumer really getting what they are paying for?
Raquel, just curious, what is required to have an FDA registered facility? Can you take me through the paperwork? does the FDA inspect the facility prior to giving its approval and if yes, do they inspect at regular intervals (how often?). Does the company have to pay a fee (once or yearly) in order to be registered?
Hi Joe,
I would be more than happy to get that information for you. What’s great about the company is that you can always to the their website http://www.usana.com and they have links “Ask the Scientists” and also “Ask Andy”. And you can always send them any questions or concerns that you have about the products and they can help. I will try to get this information for you.
Aloha
Raquel
Raquel, thanks Ill look forward to what you find.
I’ve been visiting my Dad for the past two weeks. I ran an errand for him the other day to pick up one of his prescriptions. When I handed it to him, he bitterly complained about how the price had shot up to $1 a pill and said it was horribly expensive.
I immediately opened up his medicine cabinet, pulled out his bottle of Protandim, and pointed out that he is paying $1.50 a pill for a few pennies worth of herbs which have not been proven to do ANYTHING for him! His prescription, on the other hand, helps him greatly.
I showed the bottle to his neurologist during an appointment to ask if any of the ingredients could interfere with the medications he is on. The doctor was only familiar with green tea and said it is known to interfere with many medications, but we should check with a pharmacist about the other ingredients.
He also has two bottles of the anti aging cream ($70 each, I think). He is 88 years old. Shame on the person pushing this stuff on him.
Hi Joe,
I so enjoy and appreciate your blog. Your scientific mind grasps the bodies ability to access the proposed properties and your teaching skills allows you to convey your findings. Plus your fair mindedness and lack of malice or sarcasm is a breath of fresh air! So thank you for the work that you do.
I wrote several months ago about Protandim. I have taken it daily for 6 months. Several of my friends including the furry ones have also been on the Protandim protocol of one tablet most every day.
I am feeling super good. I’m 60 years old, run a busy, holistic day spa and my days are full functioning as operator and therapist. I’ve owned my business for 16 years now and a year ago I wasn’t sure I could keep up my demanding schedule, as much as I love my work it. I now have energy to spare for bike riding, gardening and personal pursuits. I know my testimony is not scientific. But then I went in for my past due dental cleaning and my gums have shown a significant improvement, with my pockets measuring at three’s or less, when last check up I had a few fives.
My brother has Parkinson’s, bless his sweet heart, takes it everyday. It’s not a cure but something is changing for the better in his overall well being. My partner was this close to dying last year with a series of very complicated, mostly genetic health concerns. Steve’s coming around and looking like a somewhat restored human being. His Doctor is so impressed with his progress that he and his receptionist who checks him in are both now taking Protandim.
Our dogs are friskier, I guess that’s a blessing!
I am very grateful to have this wonderful product in my life. I say, one pill a day changes everything. My offer still stand Joe. I would be thrilled to share Protandim with you, free of charge for the first three months, as a personal thank you for what you share with the rest of us. Effects may or may not be noticed before but it does take 90 days to significantly reduce oxidative stress
Susan
Susan, thanks for your very kind words and for your offer too. If I ever change my mind about testing Protandim personally I will let you know. While I’m happy for the results you and friends (and dogs) have gotten from it, the current state of the research plus several of distributors I’ve encountered here and elsewhere just made me a bit leery of looking into it further. Maybe I’ll change my mind one day if they do better research? Regardless, I am happy for you for the benefits you are experiencing.
you might look at the names on the studies versus the names of the board members, I wonder about a conflict of interest…….
I agree Claudia. What I also wonder is if those on the advisory board are people who were involved in previous studies and were later brought on as advisers because of their knowledge of the product through their studies or if they are involved in current studies. I do know that it is a publicly traded company and they are highly regulated.
Isn’t that answered, at least in part, by my post above where Doug Robinson says:
“First, on the Scientific Advisory Board, we do have a Scientific Advisory Board with some of the same members that we’ve had in the past. They consult regularly to us. Many of the Scientific Advisory Board members are actually members of the research organizations that are conducting studies as we speak as they consult with us in that way.”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1692702-lifevantages-ceo-discusses-f4q-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
well my sister and her husband sell the stuff (as a living and interestingly they use to sell Mona Vi, sp) and they are true believers, my sister just said something amazing the other day about the FDA said that Protandium could say in their advertising that it reduces oxidation stress by 40%, however I can’t find anything that said the FDA has says one way or another.
Their testing seems to fall short of the obvious next step which is to see if it has any impact on health, they claim this but no testing to back it up My sister (who is not dumb, gullible maybe) quotes all sorts of stuff but if you research it it’s just assumptions made from tests, now she ‘s quoting the higher ups, but man, for instance: Protandium is good for animals and has the same magical healing powers as it does for people, this came from the mice testing and the assumption was made that it must be good for all animals too.
My brother who is a doctor and I roll our eyes, this company seems to make all sorts of interesting claims from just a few tests. They have reinvented themselves more that once and they have gone bankrupt several times before emerging as LVN.
Paul,
When I come back as a rat, then that information will be super pertinent. But as a human, if my doctor or cardiologist were to tell me to take Protandim based on that study………….I would be searching for a new doctor. What Joe is getting at is the lack of clinical studies on humans. You pro-Protandimites seem to think that what happens in a rat is what is going to happen in humans and you seem to think that the AHA is saying that same thing. Forget the rats! Bring on the clinical live human studies. Just saying……………
You’re right Joe, the American Heart Association funded and sponsored a study about Protandim done on rats and published it in their journal. That should tell you something. And as far as the study everyone (except me) is talking about this week, it isn’t really research and I don’t refer to it as such. Like I said in my earlier comment, the people reading this blog can put all of their faith and trust in YOUR analysis of the Protandim studies or they can understand that the American Heart Association (and their doctors) spent millions of dollars to study Prodandim and felt the results were significant enough to publish the study in their journal “Circulation” that is sent to every cardiologist in this country and most of those in every other country on the planet. Just sayin…….
Paul said: “the American Heart Association (and their doctors) spent millions of dollars to study Prodandim and felt the results were significant.”
Millions of dollars spent by the AHA and their doctors??? Now it’s just getting sad to see how persistent your delusions are. Tell you what Paul, provide the name and contact number or email address of any official representative of the AHA who will directly back up your claim. And that doesn’t mean you come back here with a 1-800 number and some random name you pulled off the internet.
Either contact the AHA directly and set the wheels in motion by having someone there verify your claim, or contact Lifevantage and have them do it on your behalf, and then come back with specific details as to who we can contact at the AHA for confirmation. We’ll be waiting, and the crickets will be chirping.
Hey Paul, I think it’s time that you were made aware of the fact that as a distributor of Protandim participating in this discussion and making claims about the product, you are legally obligated to disclose your financial relationship, and under the terms of your contract with the company, to identify yourself by name along with your distributor ID number.
You appear to have repeatedly violated FTC regulations regarding disclosure of material connections in relation to product claims, endorsements, and testimonials on the internet. It’s time you stopped and showed respect for the law. I’d hate to see you get in hot water if the FTC ever had to hunt you down.
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-publishes-final-guides-governing-endorsements-testimonials/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-staff-revises-online-advertising-disclosure-guidelines/130312dotcomdisclosures.pdf
You have also apparently violated the terms of your contract with Lifevantage:
From Lifevantage’s Policies and Procedures FAQ (Nov 27, 2013):
“LifeVantage Independent Distributors must disclose their full names on all relevant social media profiles that relate to LifeVantage and its products or business, and each must conspicuously identify themselves as an ‘LifeVantage Independent Distributor.’ Anonymous postings or use of an alias is prohibited.”
Again, I’d hate to see you have your distributorship revoked for getting caught red handed (the organization expects you to tell lies but prefers that you do it covertly without getting caught) and embarrassing the company further, adding to their PR woes. God forbid you should have to seek gainful employment. Or would you? I fear that you’re unemployable and would just seek out a new means to scam people.
Paul,
Since the AHA was so blown away by that rat study, can you please provide a link where the AHA recommends people take Protandim? I just looked at their dietary and supplement recommendations, and I couldn’t find any mention of Protandim. Surely I’ve overlooked it since they spent millions on the study and it was so significant.
Show me the link where the AHA recommends that people take any product?
OK:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/Vitamin-and-Mineral-Supplements_UCM_306033_Article.jsp#mainContent
They recommend taking fish oil.
They actually advise against taking supplements in general, though.
Yes, and if you read from about the middle of the article down they give a fairly well detailed explanation what they mean about supplements and Protandim does NOT fit into any of those categories. Thank you for the link…..I will definitely look into a good omega-3 fatty acid supplement. Any suggestions?
I don’t see a list of categories. Are you saying Protandim is not a supplement? In that case, it must be a drug. Ut oh, now you’re in deep doodoo.
At any rate, I don’t see Protandim being recommended by the AHA. Why would they not list it if they thought there was compelling scientific evidence that it was good for you?
Here is their take on herbs and other supplements, so we don’t get hung up on categories:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/Dietary-Supplements-Powders-and-Other-Formulas_UCM_305965_Article.jsp#mainContent
The Protandim website claims to “REDUCES OXIDATIVE STRESS AN AVERAGE OF 40% IN 30 DAYS.” So, correct me if I am wrong, the only way for an individual to prove these claims to him/herself would be to get their stress levels checked, take the product for a period of time, and retest their stress levels. Am I correct?
Jay, I believe yes that would be correct – although I’d prefer a randomized placebo study of at least 100 people.
Joe, I agree with both you and Vogel. But my point was literally directed toward an individual. What I mean is, I have read a few replies here of people stating that they felt “better”. So what I am trying to establish is how can an individual actually quantify their OWN results and be able to legitimately say that Protandim worked and that their feeling better was not just a placebo effect.
Jay, that can be a difficult thing to discern.
Jay, I agree with Joe and Brian as well, it would be more significant if the all of the studies were large scale human clinicals. Unfortunately they are not. They ARE, on the other hand, all peer reviewed research, which in itself is significant.
The fact that they are not all human clinicals does NOT mean that they should all be tossed aside as irrelevant. The American Heart Association paid for and published one of the studies in their journal “Circulation”.
That in itself is significant unless you think Joe and Brian’s analysis of the research is more reliable than the American Heart Association and that ALL research outside of human clinicals is junk?
Paul, but the American Heart Association study you referred to is a rat study. Also the most recent study – the one everybody is talking about this week – is not peer reviewed but rather only an abstract in the FASEB journal. Abstracts are not submitted for peer review.
Who is Brian?
Oh Boy- Paulie is going to suffer the wrath of “Brian” now.
I love these people. This is way more entertaining than Late Night w/ whoever.
In the face of crushing evidence against their “wonder supplement”, there’s always another distributor willing to make an A#$ of him(her)self, and awaken the Vogel, who armed to the teeth with Seal team six fire power of information, and never shy about using it, commences crushing all feeble attempts at legitimizing their tired positions. Good Stuff, Good Stuff.
Paulie-
try something new… when you have something… but please don’t stop- like I said- this is great entertainment!
LOL Phil…….I’m getting the popcorn too! 🙂
Phil…..crushing evidence? I’m sorry, I just don’t see it. Most of the “evidence” as you call it is trying to discredit the Joe McCord or Lifevantage. There just isn’t any real evidence here to discredit the product itself.
Just for arguments sake let’s just assume all that the naysayers are saying is true. We know that only 2 of the 16 published peer reviewed studies were performed with human clinicals. Let’s assume Dr. McCord had nothing to do with the development of the product. Let’s assume that 2 or even 3 of the 16 published studies were paid for by the manufacturer.
Let’s even assume that you can buy the basic ingredients from the health food store and you can mix them in the correct proportions. Now that we’re assuming those things, let’s try common sense for a minute. Top level universities have paid tens of millions of dollars to do studies on Protandim.
I don’t know the people who performed the studies so I can only assume but I’m gonna guess that they are not freshmen level students or scientist hacks. More than likely the studies were performed by PhD level scientists (easily verifiable and not worth wasting my time over). Does that mean they are full proof and without error just for that reason? Of course not.
Once the studies are completed they are then sent out to the top researches in the field to examine (hence peer reviewed) to make sure that proper procedures were followed and that the results are valid. When all of those doing the analysis agree that the study is valid, then and only then is the research published.
Now here is the common sense question for you…..why would the universities pay tens of millions of dollars to study a product and have it published if what they were doing held absolutely no weight in the scientific community? And the second common sense question, should the fact that the studies weren’t performed to Joe and Brian’s standards hold ANY weight here?
Let’s weigh this out (hold your hands out like a scale for effect), Joe and Brian reviewing science that they OBVIOUSLY don’t know that much about or MANY PhD’s and millions of dollars spent and their research published in peer reviewed studies……..yeah, you’re right……the evidence is crushing!
Paul, If I understand the gist of what you are saying it comes down to the argument that “people with PhD’s are smarter and we should take their word for it. Joe doesn’t have a PhD so he doesn’t know what hes talking about.”
I hold a MS degree in exercise science and a BS degree in chemistry and biology. I’ve read countless studies over the years but you are right, I do not hold a PhD. I dont think I need one to analyze Protandim. It doesn’t take a PhD to tell the difference between mouse/test tube studies and people studies.
Actually not all the Protandim research was done by PhDs. If I can direct your attention to the 2013 study of mouse heart cells http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23201694 this was actually the MS Thesis of a student at the Univ of Colorado. A MS Thesis is no small undertaking (I wrote one myself) but it’s still a mouse study.
If I were in grad school today I could do a better – more useful- study than all the research done to date. Believe me, I’m not bragging because that research would not be difficult to do.
Paul-
Thank you for being the gift that keeps on giving. As long as you are invoking the let’s try common sense argument, if this stuff worked so well- why won’t Protandim sponsor people studies and put all the criticism to rest?
I look so forward to the Vogel’s response, I can hardly wait.
That’s easy Phil, 300% growth year to year. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Lifevantage makes ONE claim about their product and they already have a human clinical that verifies that claim.
Paul said: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Lifevantage makes ONE claim about their product and they already have a human clinical that verifies that claim.”
Unfortunately for Lifevantage, they also have a human clinical trial that discounts that ONE claim. But why split hairs over such a trivial detail right?
Brian since you are hell bent on convincing people that the product does not work will you please give us a layman’s explanation of that second human clinical, what they were hoping to show in that study and also enlighten us as to who paid for and performed the research for that clinical?
Dear Professor Marvel-
There is no Brian that we are aware of on this site. To whom are you referring? BTW- How’s Dorothy?
So Filbert, you mean because we all know each other so intimately and deeply here you are offended because you don’t know who I am referring to? And by the way, that’s Captain Marvel to you!
LOL. I’m definitely not offended! Still- Professor Marvel- google it
Paulie-
Are you the same guy that came to my door trying to sell Rainbow vacuum cleaners a few years back?
You remind me of Chuck Wepner, aka The Bayonne Bleeder- you keep receiving the blog equivalent of a punch in the face, and yet you keep coming back for more. Please don’t stop.
I guess I owe Vogel an apology. When I was “new” to the site, I thought he was perhaps bullying anyone that would voice a positive opinion about Protandim. WRONG! You Protandimites are shameless!! But again, thank you for the yucks!
Paul said: “Now here is the common sense question for you…..why would the universities pay tens of millions of dollars to study a product and have it published if what they were doing held absolutely no weight in the scientific community?”
They didn’t. Next commonsense question?
And Brian, to quote my favorite retard on this blog…..”where’s your proof”?
Paul said: “I don’t know the people who performed the studies so I can only assume but I’m gonna guess that they are not freshmen level students or scientist hacks. More than likely the studies were performed by PhD level scientists (easily verifiable and not worth wasting my time over).”
Sure, when you don’t know something, why waste time actually looking for easily verifiable facts when you can just pull an answer out of your arse instead. As Joe already pointed out, your assumption is wrong; In many cases the studies on Protandim have been performed by grad students and other personnel who don’t have PhDs.
How many times do you think you should get to step up to the plate and whiff Paul? You’re batting about 0 for 100 by now. I’d tell you to give it a rest but you’re providing comic relief for my friends, so have at it.
Awwwe man, you’re going to make me post the following information from PubMed AGAIN, aren’t you Paul??
These standards you lament do not originate from Joe, Vogel, Scott, Phil, Tom, Dick, Harry, or me.
Sigh. Here you go, direct from PubMed:
“About Clinical Effectiveness Research
Clinical effectiveness research finds answers to the question “What works? in medical and health care.”
“Working” is a real health benefit – like symptom relief, quicker recovery, or longer life. To find out if something really works, all important effects need to be studied. That means possible harms as well as possible benefits.
Clinical or health effects are sometimes called patient-relevant outcomes.
How do researchers get from an idea to proof of clinical effectiveness?
Ideas about what could work might come from laboratory tests. There might be animal testing. Studies observing patients also generate important knowledge and theories.
But all these types of research cannot provide definite proof that a particular treatment works. Many other factors could be having an impact at the same time as treatment. People often improve with or without treatment, too.
Putting ideas, theories, and beliefs to the test
Testing clinical effectiveness in people requires experiments that can single out the true effects of specific actions. That is why the possible effects of treatments and prevention methods need to be studied in clinical trials.
One trial is rarely enough to provide definite answers. Later trials sometimes confirm early results—and sometimes come up with conflicting results. So researchers search for, and then analyze, all the trials that have studied particular questions. This type of research is called a systematic review.”
End quote.
Now, read that a few times so it will sink in.
Also, I find your assertion that millions of dollars have been spent by researchers to study this curry pill highly questionable. Surely you have the numbers handy to back up this claim, right?
It’s also worth repeating the following post from awhile back, which gives us some insight into how LV’s studies are conducted:
In a very interesting conference call discussing their fiscal fourth quarter 2013 results, LifeVantage CEO Doug Robinson spilled the beans on how their “research” works:
“First, on the Scientific Advisory Board, we do have a Scientific Advisory Board with some of the same members that we’ve had in the past. They consult regularly to us. Many of the Scientific Advisory Board members are actually members of the research organizations that are conducting studies as we speak as they consult with us in that way.”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1692702-lifevantages-ceo-discusses-f4q-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
The president of the board of supervisors of the hospital in the community where I live is also my personal real estate agent and previously the CEO of a telecommunications company………what does that mean? About the same thing as members of a Scientific Advisory Board for a company also being involved with the research of the product that that company produces. Somehow that is proof that something is wrong with the product?
That’s what you’re going with? So just to be clear, Paul….you’re ignoring everything else in that post, and throwing up some strange comparison between the affiliations your real estate agent has, and the fact that the scientists doing studies on Protandim are paid advisors to the company?
The relationship of your real estate agent to a hospital or a telecommunication company has no relevance whatsoever. They are completely unrelated.
LV boasts about independant studies and that researchers from all over the world are interested enough to use their own money to study Protandim. The fact that many of LV’s supposedly “independent studies” are being conducted by members of LV’s (paid) scientific advisory board is relevant. Do you really not see that?
Just curious, who pays for the studies done on pharmaceutical drugs before they go to market?
Paul, some of those studies are done by the NIH and universities and hospitals do other research. I dont begrudge LV for funding their own research, in fact I appreciate it. I wish they would do more of it.
I appreciate knowing where the research is performed, but what I’m asking is, who pays for it?
Paul said: “I don’t know the people who performed the studies so I can only assume but I’m gonna guess that they are not freshmen level students or scientist hacks. More than likely the studies were performed by PhD level scientists (easily verifiable and not worth wasting my time over). Does that mean they are full proof and without error just for that reason? Of course not.”
So once again, instead of actually looking into the details, which is easy enough to do, you choose not to and to make incorrect assumptions.
To all who wish to see the evidence that Lifevantage has repeatedly used grad students to execute and author their research, I highly recommend the following articles (also check out the comments sections). http://www.protandimscams.com/protandim-skin-cancer-reviews-lead-author-is-a-grad-student/
http://www.protandimscams.com/lifevantage-lies-to-sec-investors-consumers-about-harvard-study/
In addition, I found yet another recent example. The lead author of this shoddy conference abstract (comparing Protandim with pharmaceutical NRF2 activators) published in 2011 Jamie Lin, is a grad student (who does not hold a PhD) under the supervision of co-author Jack van Horssen, an assistant professor in the Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology department at University of Amsterdam.
http://registration.akm.ch/einsicht.php?XNABSTRACT_ID=137548&XNSPRACHE_ID=2&XNKONGRESS_ID=150&XNMASKEN_ID=900
http://www.neurosciencecampus-amsterdam.nl/en/people/staff-a-z/staff-g-h/van-horssen/index.asp
That abstract was published in October 2011 and today, 2½ years later, a full report still has not been published. It’s safe to assume that the “research” wasn’t as significant as the Protandim shills would have us believe.
When we look at the totality of the research, it’s fair to say that most of it was done by grad students, plagued by McCord’s financial conflict of interest, and/or funded/authored by company insiders. When the company and its distributors aren’t busy trying to bury those facts, they’re trying to BS us with deceptive tales about the involvement of the NIH and AHA in the research. Truly pathetic! How many times do you think you can get caught lying with suffering consequences?
Brian, you are a retard. Now that I have that off my chest…….I haven’t seen anyone here arguing whether Harvard conducted a study or not any why in the hell does anyone care? Secondly, who was the lead on the study in your Ssecond link? Oh wait, it WAS a PhD level scientist. And for everyone’s information, NO study is conducted using ALL PhD’s. They all use graduate students to help facilitate the research which is guided by the Dr.
Hold your breath Brian, here it comes…….Congratulations! You found 1 of 16 peer reviewed studies currently published that had a less than PhD level scientist as the lead author. You get a gold star!
The other links refer to a meeting of the 5th Joint triennial congress of the European and Americas Committees for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and the study that it refers to was research on a Drug produced by Biogen Idec the manufacturer of BG-12 a prescription drug used in multiple sclerosis therapy, a drug currently on the market and prescribed at a cost of $4000 per month. If we are just going to throw out inane links, here’s one to take a look at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_BExTELoIo
And no, you don’t need to respond to that link, it holds about as much weight as your links.
Paul, that link is about a drug called BG12, not protandim. When I goggled “BG12 protandim” I saw a lot of websites (presumably distributors of Protandim) making the association between protandim and BG12 but again, thats just an assumption. considering how complex biological systems are, I think we’ll need a good study comparing BG12 to protandim before anyone can make those comparisons.
Paul, please stop using the name “Brian” in place of Vogel. Since there is no Brian in the conversation at this time, it confuses people who are reading this conversation.
Paul said: “Secondly, who was the lead on the study in your Ssecond link? Oh wait, it WAS a PhD level scientist.”
One of the authors on the study in question was McCord (conflict of interest) and of the remaining 7 authors, 5 of them were not PhDs. This contradicts your previous statement:
“More than likely the studies were performed by PhD level scientists (easily verifiable and not worth wasting my time over).”
Next time, I suggest you “waste” your time instead of wasting ours by having to correct your false statements.
Paul said: “And for everyone’s information, NO study is conducted using ALL PhD’s. They all use graduate students to help facilitate the research which is guided by the Dr.”
First, no, that’s not true at all. I don’t know why you’d even make such a claim when you obviously know nothing about how research is conducted. Some studies use non-PhDs/MDs; many others do not, particularly when the subject matter deals with clinical medicine. You initially said that the studies were done by PhDs and when I presented clear evidence that this was false, you simply changed your story and are now claiming that it doesn’t matter if there are non-PhDs on the publications. I’ve lost any hope that you’ll ever man up and admit when you’re wrong, because you haven’t done so yet despite being proven wrong on a daily basis, but at least your dishonesty is chronicled here for all to see.
Paul said: “Hold your breath Brian, here it comes…….Congratulations! You found 1 of 16 peer reviewed studies currently published that had a less than PhD level scientist as the lead author. You get a gold star!”
First of all, Lifevantage doesn’t have “16 peer reviewed studies published”. They may have 16 “publications”, but roughly a quarter of them are review articles, and review articles are not considered “studies” per se because they don’t involve any original research. Secondly, many of the Protandim papers I looked at included grad students among the authors; I just didn’t bother to list them all because it was not necessary to do so in order to disprove your original claim that the work was done by PhDs. One of those additional examples is Delira Robbins, who was an author on 3 of the publications (lead author on two of them) and did not have a PhD. I already provided a link to the article that discusses Robbins’ involvement; it would help if you had actually read the sources before you conducted your misleading personal straw poll.
Paul said: “Jay, I agree with Joe and Brian as well, it would be more significant if the all of the studies were large scale human clinicals. Unfortunately they are not. They ARE, on the other hand, all peer reviewed research, which in itself is significant.”
Significant to test tubes and diseased rodents perhaps. Certainly not significant to humans. That much we already know for certain. You’re still ignoring the fact that the most recent, best designed clinical study of Protandim ever conducted showed that the product did nothing. So it’s dishonest to pretend that there is simply a lack of clinical data when in fact the clinical data exists and directly contradicts the company’s marketing claims.
Paul said: “The fact that they are not all human clinicals does NOT mean that they should all be tossed aside as irrelevant.”
That’s exactly what it means. Scientific issues aside, the company and all of its distributors, including you of course, are legally obligated (under DSHEA) to not present any studies that even make a remote connection between your product and the treatment of any kind of medical condition, yet this . has been violated repeatedly. That these claims are being based on in vitro/animal studies conducted by company insiders just adds insult to injury.
Paul said: “The American Heart Association paid for and published one of the studies in their journal “Circulation’.”
That’s a very misleading thing to say, and it’s not the first time I’ve seen Protandim distributors implying that the AHA endorsed/sanctified Protandim and research on the product. This claim has in fact been thoroughly debunked already.
http://www.protandimscams.com/protandim-the-ohio-study-american-heart-association-aha-and-national-institute-of-health-nih-funding/
A study was published by Lifevantage executive/insider McCord and colleagues in the journal Circulation. The Protandim aspect seemed to be tagged on as an afterthought to other unrelated experiments reported in the study; notice that of the 6 figures of data presented, 5 of them don’t mention Protandim at all – i.e., Protandim was a relatively small part of the overall study.
Bogaard HJ, Natarajan R, Henderson SC, Long CS, Kraskauskas D, Smithson L, Ockaili R, McCord JM, Voelkel NF. Chronic pulmonary artery pressure elevation is insufficient to explain right heart failure. Circulation. 2009;120(20):1951-60.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/20/1951.long
It is important to note that a concentrated alcohol extract of Protandim (not a pill/powder form like the supplement) was injected intra-abdominally (not taken orally the way the supplement is intended to be consumed) in rats (not humans) that had disease (i.e., not healthy humans – Protandim’s legal target market) induced experimentally by exposure to hypoxia and injection of the VEGF receptor blocker SU5416. Even in theory, it’s a long, long way away from being representative of anything directly relevant to the consumer market for Protandim (i.e., healthy humans who are supposed to take the pill orally); and in reality, it is a violation of DSHEA to use such studies for the marketing of Protandim.
As for the AHA publishing the study, the AHA publishes the journal itself; the AHA itself does not peer review or scrutinize any of the studies submitted for publication. The task of reviewing submissions is performed by editors on the Circulation’s editorial board, not the AHA per se.
The most misleading claim made by distributors though concerns the funding issue. The grant numbers listed for the study have been cross-referenced against grants listed in the AHA database and it was clear that the research that these grants were intended to fund had nothing to do with Protandim. What often happens in academic research is that when there are unused funds leftover from a grant, the researcher can at their discretion use the funds for research not specified in the original grant proposal. That appears to be the case in this instance. This is a long way from supporting the notion that the AHA knowingly funded a Protandim study. It’s simply a case of a researcher spending the AHAs money on research that they had no clue about.
When you say that the “AHA paid for and published one of the studies” of Protandim it implies that the AHA independently initiated a study on Protandim and published it in their journal. Hopefully you can now see why you should never make that deceptive claim again.
Paul said: “That in itself is significant unless you think Joe and Brian’s analysis of the research is more reliable than the American Heart Association and that ALL research outside of human clinicals is junk?”
As far as relevancy to humans, yes, in practical terms all research outside of clinical trials is junk. Every clinical scientist and regulatory authority in the country knows this. Literally tens of thousands of compounds that have shown promising results of some kind at the preclinical (test tube/animal) phase turn out to be abject failures at the clinical testing (human) phase, if they even make it that far off the launch pad, and most do not. The accuracy of pre-clinical models for identifying compounds that ultimately succeed in randomized controlled clinical trials is extremely low. That’s why the FDA does not allow in vitro and in vivo data to support claims of effectiveness or safety.
And why are you still mentioning Brian? Are you referring to someone named Brian that you have a grudge with who isn’t here participating? Furthermore, why are you trying to make this seem like a battle between Joe/Brian versus the AHA? There is no head to head in a debate taking place. The AHA isn’t going to bat for you or Protandim. They’ve never addressed any of the issues we’re talking about here. You demonstrate exactly why it is that Lifevantage gets these worthless misleading studies published. So that guys like you can throw them at people, namedrop the AHA, and then run.
The onus isn’t on individuals to personally test every product claim made by supplement manufacturers; the onus is on the manufacturer to have adequate evidence as to what a consumer can typically expect from taking the product. Lifevantage’s research, however, indicates that consumers cannot reliably expect to see a reduction in TBARs after taking the product.
The TBARS test isn’t a test that is used in clinical medicine. It is not offered by physicians or hospitals and it is not recognized as a valid diagnostic marker. It is not covered by any healthcare plan. .
Still haven’t gotten a response as to why they are still pushing an abc video from 2005? LV ie a cult an all the distributors have the same robotic responses to legitimate questions. I have not heard o e reasonable response from an LV member without a misplaced emotional irrelevant defense rant telling me all the info I need is on pubmed.gov. All up and down this blog The findings on pubmed.gov have been picked apart by Joe and others who did exactly what LV tells us to do they went to the website and found many issues with LV claims for Protandim and yet we get the same idiotic defense.
Greg,
Call me crazy, but I think LisaRob just caught you putting your head into the noose and she just pulled the lever on the gallows. The Japanese pulled Ashwaganda from the formula because it is illegal to include in supplements – just in case you decide to cry foul. Now it makes you wonder how many of the other ingredients in your product that is “in a class all by itself” are superfluous.
After all, the “sacred 5 ingredients” are what supposedly makes Protandim what it is. Each ingredient acts on the other to work in synergy to activate the NrF2 molecule and lower oxidative stress. Isn’t that the company line?
So now, Protandim works with only 4 of the sacred ingredients? How is that possible Greg? I mean the Japanese launch was reported as being huge for the sales in the company. And well……..we have Japanese folks living over here. Are they being “poisoned” by consuming the original formulation if they live over here?
We pause for your “brilliant” retort Greg.
Nice job, LisaRob.
This will interest everyone following this blog–a new study has been published that studied the version of Protandim being sold in Japan. Note that Dr McCord DID NOT conduct the study, and that LifeVantage DID pay the costs of the study. I am waiting to see how those who have been accusing Dr McCord of faking study results twist this, or say that LV does not put any money into studies twist that. Here is the link to the abstract– http://www.fasebj.org/gca?allch=&submit=Go&gca=fasebj%3B28%2F1_Supplement%2FLB399
Greg, thanks for the study. Have you seen any research comparing Protandim to just tumeric?
I noticed this was published in the supplement of the FASEB Journal. that makes me wonder if it was published just as an abstract. Abstracts dont have to go through peer review. Am I correct on these points?
I don’t think any Protandim vs tumeric studies have been published, but I do know that Dr McCord had already tried tumeric to reduce OS before he ever heard of Protandim, and had found that it had only minimal effectiveness by itself.
Greg B said: “I don’t think any Protandim vs tumeric studies have been published, but I do know that Dr McCord had already tried tumeric to reduce OS before he ever heard of Protandim, and had found that it had only minimal effectiveness by itself.”
Oh lordy, where to begin with that statement. First, you mean turmeric extract, not turmeric per se. It’s an important distinction. Protandim and similar supplements use an extract of turmeric because it provides a more concentrated source of curumin as compared with the un-extracted dried plant material.
Secondly, and most importantly, it is widely known (and it could be said universally accepted) that curcumin acts as a radical-scavenging antioxidant, which the small sampling of studies (and 1 review) that I provided below will attest to.
Third, when you make claims about what McCord did or did not do/say, it would really help if you could support it with facts, like I do in every single last one of my posts. Otherwise, I have to address a multiplicity of possibilities in my replies. For instance, if you were truthful in saying that you “know that McCord had already tried turmeric and found that it had only minimal effectiveness by itself”, then what are we to conclude other than he’s inept/incompetent, since he failed to reproduce what other scientists in his field have demonstrated as a pharmacological fact numerous time over. Or maybe you don’t really “know” that McCord “tried” turmeric. Maybe you erred out of confusion or were straight up lying. Or maybe someone from Lifevantage told you this in and was mistaken or lying, and/or maybe McCord misspoke or lied to Lifevantage, who in turn relayed it to the drones in the field. This is the kind of speculation you invite when you make comments and ask questions without putting facts on the table. The point here is not to gossip but to get to the heart of the matter using high-quality sources and logical well supported arguments.
Tennesen HH. Greenhill JV. Studies on curcumin and curcuminoids. XXII: Curcumin as a reducing agent and as a radical scavenger. Int J Pharm. 1992;87(1–3):79–87.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037851739290230Y
Jovanovic SV, Steenken S, Boone CW, Simic MG. H-Atom transfer is a preferred antioxidant mechanism of curcumin. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1999:121(41):9677–9681.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja991446m
Priyadarsini KI, Maity DK, Naik GH, Kumar MS, Unnikrishnan MK, Satav JG, Mohan H. Role of phenolic O-H and methylene hydrogen on the free radical reactions and antioxidant activity of curcumin. Free Radic Biol Med. 2003 Sep 1;35(5):475-84.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12927597
Ak T, Gülçin I. Antioxidant and radical scavenging properties of curcumin. Chem Biol Interact. 2008 Jul 10;174(1):27-37.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18547552
Sharma RA, Gescher AJ, Steward WP. Curcumin: the story so far. Eur J Cancer. 2005 Sep;41(13):1955-68.
http://cdn.elsevier.com/assets/pdf_file/0018/115722/european-journal-of-cancer-article-1.pdf
Joe asked: “I noticed this was published in the supplement of the FASEB Journal. that makes me wonder if it was published just as an abstract. Abstracts dont have to go through peer review. Am I correct on these points?”
You are 100% correct. Abstracts typically undergo no (or at best scant) peer-review prior to publication. The full study methodology and results are not submitted so there is no way to properly peer review such a “study” (it’s a study in name only). That’s why abstracts are considered worthless from a scientific evidence standpoint. In rare cases, they may be cited but only grudgingly and as a last resort, with the universally recognized assumption that conference abstracts don’t count for a hill of beans.
Let’s try that again: the evisceration of the FASEB abstract begins here…
http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/lifevantage-protandim-scam/comment-page-35/#comment-1234513
…and continues here…
http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/lifevantage-protandim-scam/comment-page-35/#comment-1234521
But then again Brian, you completely negate even the peer reviewed studies so we can pretty much totally disregard your input as far as studies go.
Paul says: “But then again Brian, you completely negate even the peer reviewed studies so we can pretty much totally disregard your input as far as studies go.”
Really, Paul?
Vogel has proven that he is quite capable of analysing scientific papers and has convincingly done so. For you to dismiss his analysis just because it disproves LV’s “science” is ludicrous.
Did you miss all the discussions about the studies? Did you miss the part about how the vast majority are test tube and rodent studies? Did you miss where I posted PubMed’s information on how to determine “what works”? You know, where they point out that multiple human studies are needed in order to draw any conclusions. Vogel doesn’t even need to negate the studies, PubMed does that for you. You only need to look at the human studies, and so far, they are not impressive.
Paul said “But then again Brian, you completely negate even the peer reviewed studies so we can pretty much totally disregard your input as far as studies go.”
Hey &#!%-head, why are you still calling me Brian? You can’t make all your problems in life disappear simply by calling them Brian. I told you already that my name isn’t Brian.
Who is the “we” you are pretending to speak for? I don’t see anyone else arbitrarily disregarding my analysis of the research. If you disagree with any of the points I’ve made, and can present evidence to back up your objections (as I have consistently done with my critiques), then let’s hear it. Try, just once, to be an honest and constructive participant in this dialog.
I was so interested that I started penning my evisceration of the “study” before you even posted your comment alerting us to its existence. I look forward to your well reasoned scientific rebuttal Professor Greg.
http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/lifevantage-protandim-scam/comment-page-35/#comment-1234521
Greg B said: “This will interest everyone following this blog–a new study has been published that studied the version of Protandim being sold in Japan. Note that Dr McCord DID NOT conduct the study, and that LifeVantage DID pay the costs of the study. I am waiting to see how those who have been accusing Dr McCord of faking study results twist this, or say that LV does not put any money into studies twist that.”
Let’s be clear — a “study” was not published per se; a meeting abstract was published. They are two entirely different entities. Meeting abstracts do not undergo rigorous peer review and they do not report sufficient details to discern anything about the validity or reliability of the research. If a full report of the research were published in a scientific journal, only then would it be possible to subject it to any kind of reasonable scrutiny.
It is of course obvious that McCord did not author the study. We already know that he walked away from LifeVantage a while ago with a $2.5 million golden parachute, in addition to all the other money he had gleaned from serving as Lifevantage’s main pitchman (the stock, the salary, the 50-cent per bottle commission, etc.). McCord’s substantial financial conflict in interest still stands out as a red flag on all of the Protandim research that bears his name. As to whether nor not he twisted results, he may or may not have, but the FASEB abstract has no bearing on that issue or any other issue related to McCord. As for the abstract, announced today, I didn’t even bother to look at the funding sources because there were too many other things amiss with the “study” to occupy my attention. I’ve reviewed the many shortcomings and damning conclusions at the links provided earlier today.
You said that Lifevantage paid for “the costs of the study”, but again, let’s be clear — the group that published the abstract, a contract research (for-profit) lab which Lifevantage had a longstanding relationship with, was paid by Lifevantage to conduct the study. Let’s not be under any illusions that this was an independent study free from conflict of interest. But I’m even willing to suspend judgment about the issues of collusion/funding and focus on the design and results alone (the scant details that were included in the abstract). They don’t bode well for Protandim.
As for your claim about accusations that the company doesn’t put money into research, they clearly haven’t done so to any great extent in the past, as indicated by the paltry R&D budgets specified in the company’s SEC filings, most of which went to insider advisers like McCord. A study like the one described in the FASEB abstract wouldn’t be at all expensive to conduct. Paying volunteers a small stipend to take Japanese Protandim, doing a couple of blood draws and specimen analyses for TBARS, and data analysis/writeup would be the main costs for work like this, and they wouldn’t amount to much at all. When people argue that Protandim doesn’t devote much of their resources to R&D, they are right. Unfortunately, when they do make expenditures, it’s to produce shoddy misleading promotional fluff like the FASEB abstract.
Speaking of Japanese Protandim, this was study was conducted in Colorado and presumably the subjects were Caucasian. That’s ridiculous, given that the intended target for the product is the Japanese population. Pharmacokinetics and drug responses can differ significantly between Caucasians and Non-Caucasians, which is why pharmaceutical companies typically conduct clinical trials in populations that are representative of the target demographic.
Like Joe, I don’t care if LV funds research, as long as it is properly conducted and relevant (on humans). So far, they haven’t done that (unless you count the strange one on alcoholics where Protandim failed to best a placebo).
Since Lifevantage does fund studies, they should take this statement off of the LV site:
“The science behind Protandim is different and unique because LifeVantage Corporation doesn’t pay for it. In the world of research, this means that the product and its science must be so compelling that Ph.D.s from universities around the world want to study it and want to spend their own time and money doing it. LifeVantage has a product other people are paying to study! That is unheard of, especially in the supplement industry.- Dr. Skip Campbell”
This recent study being discussed is not the first one to be financed by LV.
I was looking around trying to find out who is on Lifevantage’s Scientific Advisory Board and I came across the information below.
In searching for scientific advisory members, Dr. Hybertson’s name (University of Colorado) came up, which led me to this 2011 study (which is one of the studies listed on Lifevantage’s website, and it is also one of the studies listed by Joe on this site):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098299711000501?via=ihub
“Oxidative stress in health and disease: The therapeutic potential of Nrf2 activation”
At the end of the study you will find this:
“Disclosure statement”
Dr. McCord is Chief Science Officer for LifeVantage Corp. (the manufacturer of Protandim, used in this study, and primary sponsor of the project). He holds equity in the Company and serves on its Board of Directors. Dr. Hybertson serves as a paid consultant to the Company, and holds equity. Dr. Gao holds equity in the Company.”
“Acknowledgements”
“The authors wish to thank Dr. Michael Edwards for his assistance in analyzing the gene array data. This work was supported in part by LifeVantage Corp.”
I don’t know how many other studies are funded by LV, but clearly this one was. That study was done in 2011, but the statement by Skip Campbell is prominently displayed on the LV website on their “Science” page…..and distributors often parrot that bit of misinformation.
I just went and confirmed for myself that the company’s website includes that statement about not paying for the research. That lie is inexcusable. One more to add to a very, very long list. Good catch Lisa.
Ronald Mac, and all MLM’ers. You are banging the drum for a few folk at the top of your particular pyramid scheme, who indeed, get rich off ya’lls passion. Fact remains, any products sold in an MLM scheme can be purchased for as much 90% cheaper somewhere else. And fact remains, all MLM’s construct are to stretch the truth, thus the term “hype” came into being describing you. If your child acts this way, they legally can put him on ritalin/prozac or that latest scheme product that modern chemistry can concoct.
True health care is not about how many folks can be schemed or hyped into purchasing something. ie: Nanci Pelosi’s “pass the health care bill so we can find out what is in it”. Ms. lame brain pelosi has typical MLM deductive reasoning. That locates the mentality of you folks who keep voting her back in. Same is true for those voting to continue to whip this dead horse, Lifevantage scheme.
Your MLM script is identical with hundreds, maybe thousands of failed MLM’s that came before you. Your script is revolting, an assault on civilized thinking. Your words can easily fall into the category of spreading Mind Pollution. If you treat your children with this sort of mind pollution you deserve your local County Children’s Protective Services to stop by and remove them from the idiocy.
Thank you Joe Cannon for providing an avenue where results oriented research can be accomplished by the rest of us, who are not hyping like meth addicts who ran out of cash.
Sincerely,
Bad Joe, Naturopathic Doctor
Doctorpeppe says ” Fact remains, any products sold in an MLM scheme can be purchased for as much 90% cheaper somewhere else.” NOT IN THIS CASE! Protandim is a patented product. There are no other versions of it available anywhere else. It can not be legally purchased anywhere else, for any price. Granted, many MLMs sell overpriced versions of stuff that can be had for much less in most any store, but not with Protandim. It is, for right now at least, literally in a class by itself.
Greg said: “Protandim is a patented product. There are no other versions of it available anywhere else. It can not be legally purchased anywhere else, for any price. Granted, many MLMs sell overpriced versions of stuff that can be had for much less in most any store, but not with Protandim. It is, for right now at least, literally in a class by itself.”
The ingredients and amounts of ingredients in Protandim are public knowledge (milk thistle extract 225 mg, bacopa extract 150 mg, ashwagandha root 150 mg, green tea extract 75 mg, turmeric extract 75 mg). The ingredients themselves are dirt cheap and widely available. Lifevantage, according to their SEC filings, produces a bottle for about $1.50 (including packaging, which probably accounts for the bulk of the cost) and sells it for over $50 — an outrageous markup. So Protandim most certainly fits the bill of a typical outrageously overpriced MLM product (with dubious value).
Even at standard retail prices for the ingredients, it would be possible to recreate Protandim exactly at about 1/15 to 1/20 the price that it retails for, without the need to support a pyrmaid scheme or sign up for auto-ship At wholesale prices for raw materials, the cost differential would be magnified 5 to 10-fold or more. It’s also worth pointing out that there’s nothing special about the ratio of ingredients in Protandim. They have no human clinical data at all to support their silly marketing fairy tale about the synergistic effect of the product’s magical ingredient ratio.
Greg:
“No other versions”?? Hang on….what about the formula sold in Japan? That’s a different version. They left out one ingredient all together in the formula sold in Japan, which shows there isn’t anything special about the product sold here.
Greg. Resistance is futile. If it was so easy…somebody would have already thought of it before you came along. How do i know? I used to be one of you, back in the 1980’s, all hyped up because the truth stretched out like those professional schemers at the top of the pyramid, stretch it, does seem too good to be true! Then i briefly got sucked back in, in the 90’s with the same lingo yall are running like a broken record – hence ‘whipping a dead horse’.
Here’s the dirty low down, MLM’ers. I now work in the ingredients industry. Any one of you can go to either Supply Side East this summer at Jacob Javitts Center in NYC or Supply Side West in some convention hall next to venetian casino or somewhere like that in Las Vegas, in the fall, and meet/greet/fall in love/purchase directly from the folks who sell same ingredients to LIfevantage or whoever MLM you are for pennies.
Just look at list of ingredients in your product. Somebody is on internet selling it, dear boy, right now, way cheaper and you don’t even have to go to jacob javitts center. Or just type in Supply Side East and type in any ingredients on the list of ingredients in your product and up pops thirty five or fifty different suppliers drooling over themselves just to sell to you at ‘pennies on the ten dollar bill’ or even ‘pennies on the 100 dollar bill’. It’s called shopping around. Ever heard of that?
Oh’, you say you have the patent…big deal. That is why you purchase the from list of ingredients. You actually think there is a magical formula for products to mix and match to get the only result you claim? From nature? That would be like somebody saying if you ate 6 pears and 3 apples, only, you will live and if you eat 6 pears and only 2 apples you will get XYZ disease and die.
And guess what happens when patent runs out in three years or whenever? Every tom, dick and harry, K-mart and/or walmart gets to sell your EXCLUSIVE MLM flagship product at an “amazing discount”…WITHOUT YOU, and before you ever got a chance to scheme up a downline and become a zillionaire, curing all disease on earth like they PROMISED you in so many round about scheming words.
Bad Joe, prior to going into network marketing Protandim was sold retail and priced at $55-$65 (+ tax) per bottle. As a network marketing product the price is $40 (+tax and shipping) per bottle.
Paul said: “Bad Joe, prior to going into network marketing Protandim was sold retail and priced at $55-$65 (+ tax) per bottle. As a network marketing product the price is $40 (+tax and shipping) per bottle.”
First of all, its intellectually dishonest of you to completely ignore the comments I made earlier today about pricing of the product relative to its production costs and the cost of the raw ingredients. Secondly, the information you provided is misleading. The price you quoted ($40) is the discounted wholesale price; the retail price is $50 (before taxes and shipping), which would amount to roughly $60 or more with taxes and shipping. Furthermore, when you are talking to consumers, it is only fair to discuss the retail price of the product. Even the wholesale price you quoted, which comes out to close to $50 a bottle with taxes and shipping, represents an astronomical markup relative to the cost of production ($1.50) or the cost of purchasing the raw ingredients separately at standard non-MLM retail prices.
Do you think that you might someday be able to bring even one legitimate contribution to this discussion? It’s getting got be comically painful watching you dance around the issues.
First of all Brian, you are the one here who is purposefully trying to deceive or mislead people. The actual cost to customers is $40 per bottle when purchased online through the company. The only other costs are taxes and shipping which are true with any other product sold via the internet in America. There are no sign up costs, and no membership fees for customers. Its true, if you choose to buy the product directly from a distributor as opposed to ordering from the company you may pay more or less as they can sell it for whatever amount they want and most distributors sell it for a little more than they paid for it (the same price customers pay for it) for two reasons 1) to make a little profit 2) to encourage people to order the product online.
Brian, please explain to us why the cost of the product went down by more than 25% from the original retail price when the company switched from retail to a network marketing model?
I’m sure it is only because you are naive or unaware of production and marketing, so I will fill you in. When a contractor purchases all of the products to build a house from Home Depot and then builds the house, he does not just add a simple markup (i.e., 10% or 20%) to the cost of those goods purchased and sell the house for that amount. He would be out of business before he sold even one house. He has to take into account ALL of his overhead costs – bonding, insurance, taxes, licensing, fuel, real estate fees and most significant – LABOR (production and office staff). The fact that the cost of goods purchased at Home Depot only totaled $55,000 does not mean when the house sells for $150,000 that he cleared $95,000. If he makes more than 10% profit on the project he has done very well for himself. Let’s add one little change to this narrative. If all of the products used in the house were the base model products you could buy, the house would be inexpensive (relative to other houses). If you were to use harder to get or more extravagant items (ingredients), the cost would inevitably rise. Most of those reading this will understand what I am saying here but Brian, since you seem a little slow, I will spell it out for you. The ingredients used in Protandim are not your base level ingredients that can be purchased at any natural food store.
You have been nice enough to list the ingredients and the amounts of each included in Protandim. Funny thing is when I went to more than one natural food store in my area and asked for milk thistle extract and green tea extract they said, “which ones”? I said the ones used in Protandim. They said we have no idea what extracts are used. I said, “The grean tea extract used in Protandim contains 98 percent polyphenols”. They told me, “you’re not going to be able to find that at any natural food store”. “That’s interesting”, I said, “Brian told me I could by them anywhere for like $1.50”.
Paul said: “First of all Brian…”
First of all, I’m not Brian, and you seem to be incapable of having an honest discussion that doesn’t involve some kind of underhanded trick, like trying to falsely associate me with your arch-rival. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Paul said: “…you are the one here who is purposefully trying to deceive or mislead people.”
That’s a false accusation that you absolutely cannot back up.
Paul said: “The actual cost to customers is $40 per bottle when purchased online through the company.”
You get all bent out of because I listed the actual retail price of the product ($50 not including taxes and shipping) as quoted on the website? The price you quoted is the “preferred customer” price, which is available only through a commitment to regular monthly auto-debit/autoship (furthermore, to cancel autoship requires sending written notification to the company by mail). Clearly though, the point I was making, quite obviously, was that the product is overpriced regardless of whether it is purchased at the retail price ($50 + tax and shipping) or the preferred customer price ($40 plus tax/shipping, close to $50 total).
Paul said: “Brian, please explain to us why the cost of the product went down by more than 25% from the original retail price when the company switched from retail to a network marketing model?”
I’m still not Brian. I’ll explain it as soon as you can provide some verifiable evidence that it’s true. It wouldn’t matter either way though. The point is that it costs about $1.50 per bottle to make; so it’s overpriced regardless of whether they charge $40 or $60 a bottle.
Paul said: “When a contractor purchases all of the products to build a house from Home Depot and then builds the house, he does not just add a simple markup…”
Your analogy about home building costs was a pointless diversion. Retail products do not get away with charging the kind of markups that Lifevantage charges. Retail profit margins are razor this, because retailers don’t use a pyramid scheme to trap people into buying their worthless overpriced, overhyped products.
Paul said: “The ingredients used in Protandim are not your base level ingredients that can be purchased at any natural food store.”
Of course they are. You have no evidence that your raw materials are superior to anything that can be purchased elsewhere. And why limit your comparator to natural food stores? There’s this thing called the internet…
Paul said: “You have been nice enough to list the ingredients and the amounts of each included in Protandim. Funny thing is when I went to more than one natural food store in my area and asked for milk thistle extract and green tea extract they said, “which ones”? I said the ones used in Protandim. They said we have no idea what extracts are used. I said, “The grean tea extract used in Protandim contains 98 percent polyphenols”. They told me, “you’re not going to be able to find that at any natural food store”. “That’s interesting”, I said, “Brian told me I could by them anywhere for like $1.50″.
First of all, Brian didn’t tell you anything, because I’m not Brian. Second, I didn’t say you could get green tea extract for $1.50; I said that the company indicated in their SEC filings that the cost of production was $1.50 per bottle. Third, I see no verifiable evidence (i.e., a composition analysis) indicating that Protandim’s green tea extract contains 98% polyphenols. Fourth, the polyphenol concentration in the extract they use doesn’t really matter because they use so little green tea extract (75 mg per caplet). Through a simple Google search I was easily able to find extracts with polyphenol content ranging from 60% to 95% for pennies on the dollar compared with Protandim. One could take 150 mg of a 60% polyphenol extract and get more than twice the dose that Protandim provide, again, for pennies on the dollar. Lastly, the Lifevantage doesn’t manufacture its raw ingredients; they simply buy them from non-exclusive third-party suppliers. If a 98% extract exists, then Lifevantage would surely not be the only buyer to whom it is available.
The faulty logic you are applying is akin to arguing that if a glass of beer with 6% alcohol sells for $4, you should be able to get away with charging $100 for a shot of whiskey with 40% alcohol.
I can’t imagine that anyone, after seeing evidence of the hundreds of lies told by this company and its distributors, could ever entertain the though of plunking down $50 for a bottle of this laughable snakeoil crap.
So, by your own account, this is a pyramid scheme. If distributers purchase the product for the same price as a consumer would when purchasing it from the company, then the only way for a distributor to make any real money is to sign up distributors …..who must then sign up more distributors…..etc.
Does that sound like a good business model to you? What customer in their right mind would purchase from a distributor, rather than directly from the company, if they can get it for less?
Face it, you’re screwed with this business model (not to mention it’s illegal and could be shut down if it gets on the FTC’s radar).
Paul seems to think that Protandim’s ingredients and/or manufacturing warrant the outrageously high premium price that the company charges for the product. Let’s delve into that possibility by exploring the background history of the manufacturing of Protandim.
From 2005 to mid-2008 LifeVantage employed Chemins Co. of Colorado Springs, CO as the ingredient supplier and manufacturer of Protandim. Chemins had been previously convicted in connection with a sensational and widely publicized tainted-supplement scandal that resulted in numerous cases of injury and deaths among consumers. The products they produced were Metabolife 356, for the disgraced MLM supplement company Metabolife, and Nature’s Nutrition Formula One (sold by Chemins). Chemins was nailed for illegally spiking supplements with epehdra and caffeine, and for lying to and obstructing the FDA. They were also implicated in methamphetamine manufacturing. In 2000, the company’s founder, James Cameron, was sentenced to 21 months in prison and he and the company were fined $4.7 million. The company also had pay out $750,000 to settle a class action for selling fraudulently labeled protein supplements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemins
Metabolife was founded by two convicted methamphetamine manufacturers (Michael Blevins and Michael Ellis) and like Chemins, this company too was embroiled in an ugly scandal. The founder was convicted (subsequent to a Congressional investigation) of lying to the FDA and concealing evidence of adverse events among consumers who took their products; the company and its owner were also convicted of income tax evasion. In 2003, in the midst of ongoing investigations, the company’s accountant, Michael Compton, committed suicide. Two of the company’ owners were later given prison sentences and the other had to pay a $600,000 fine. The company had to pay $1 billion in personal injury claims and declared bankruptcy in 2005. Around that time, Ellis was arrested and indicted in Federal court for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolife
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2003/nov/26/metabolife-death/#
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1339433/posts
Not long after, in 2008, LifeVantage hired David Brown, former CEO and president of Metabolife (who had been subpoenaed to testify during that company’s congressional investigations), to run the company, as well as Jan Strode, former PR spokesperson for Metabolife, as their new head of marketing and PR. In 2008, Lifevantage also became an MLM.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/22/us/hearings-to-begin-on-makers-of-a-popular-diet-product.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/mar/27/business/fi-golden27
http://investor.lifevantage.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=619000
http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/business/20030711-9999_1b11ephedra.html
http://investor.lifevantage.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=618987
In mid-2008, LifeVantage announced that they were switching from Chemins to a new manufacturer (Cornerstone Research & Development of Ogden, Utah), which would result in a reduction in manufacturing costs. Twice, in 2012 and 2013, Lifevantage issued recalls of Protandim as a result of suspected metal fragment contamination. A quarter million bottles were recalled and it cost Lifevantage $5.9 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protandim#Voluntary_recall
Knowing all of this (all the other damning facts notwithstanding), how can you ever even dare to attempt to convince people that Protandim is a good value proposition; that its ingredients and manufacturing are extraordinary; that it is even safe for consumers to ingest it on a daily basis (or ever for that matter); or that the company cares a fig about the quality of their products or what happens to consumers who take them? It’s would be like advising children to take candy from creepy strangers who prowl around in windowless panel vans.
The nerve of you guys trying to dupe people into believing that Protandim is worth the outrageously high price of $50-$60 a bottle. At that price, each caplet should be handcrafted like a Faberge egg, but instead what they offer is a subpar Egg McMuffin.
What a great way to get hits on your page…tear down something or someone.
You complain that LifeVantage isn’t funding more research, then you question the ABC documentary because while the research lab which was connected to CU, the highly respected researcher, Dr. Joe McCord also served as the medical director for LifeVantage for a while. You want it both ways and discredit what is presented either way.
You discredit the Ohio University study as not involving humans subjects while it did, it was not a “test tube” study as you believed. You ask to see the word “significant” in the results of various peer-reviewed studies. That’s not the language of researchers.
If you understand statistical numbers, you would see that the studies describe a statistical test number that often could be converted into a percentile number, like 95% or so. The word “significant” is not regularly used, but rather the more accurate and quantified statistical test results.
Finally, when you cannot say for sure what the results mean, you beg ignorance… which I saw much earlier in your rather lay analysis of things way over your head.
For starters, you make believe that Protandim is an antioxydent where if you really understood even one of the research papers you would have learned early on that it is not so.
The papers clearly call Protandim a Nrf2 activator which turns on every cell’s DNA to transcript antioxydents (evidenced by the reduction of protein carbonyl levels), surpress inflamations (evidenced by reductions of ICAM-1/VCAM-1 expression, and do a number of things all called out in the research which you have no understanding of.
Your rather ignorant “analysis” is confusing and muddying up rather then any clarity. Too bad, really. I look over the internet, where people waaay out of their league can say things that sound “reasoned” but no better then Creationists Science when evaluated.
Here’s how I measure whether your or Lazy Man have any root in facts: Is this site part of the usual background noise that bedevils companies from multi-billion dollar old companies like Proctor Gambles on down to young much smaller companies with cutting edge products that medical practitioners from GPs to specialists such as cardiologists and internists and oncologist can understand and recommend….or is there a real fire behind all the smoke you’re blowing – in which, I would see a lot more than two blowhards pretending to know-it-all.
Ronald, I’m sorry but you say a lot but you completely dodge the main issue and that is the almost utter lack of human research on Protandim. You can’t deny it no matter how much you try to malign me.
As for the word “significant” you are 100% wrong. I’m not even going to elaborate because it would do no good.
Joe are too kind in your resp to this idiotic rant. Why hasn’t there been any other follow up to the ancient special that is thrown in our faces over and over since 2005?
Have there not been any new findings to report? And this is your WHAT pitch tool is – a video that was produced in 2005? It’s 2014 for crying out loud where is the updated material?
Surely if there is as much proof as you are claiming for Protandim it would be documented with another video that wasn’t 9 years old. All Lv distributors tell you go to pubmed.gov and for what?
I had a LV distributor tell me Protandim will increase my glutathione by 300% How can you make that claim when that test was dine in a test tube?
There is no proof to say that would happen in a human being. I was also told the PDR approved the statement that Protandim reduces oxidative stress. where is that documentation? What a deceitful bunch of scam artists.
Joe has been nothing but objective and honest in his opinion of Protandim. This a man with a degree in chemistry so to say he’s in over his head is ignorant. what are your qualifications? All he has done is read the results on the pubmed site that every LV distributor tells you to go to and give us the truth.
Why is LV still pushing the same abc video from 9 years ago? Has there not been any new developments since then?
Ronaldmckenzie said “What a great way to get hits on your page…tear down something or someone.”
What a dishonest way to discredit a legitimate discussion. It’s foolish to suggest that something is amiss merely because a blog site writes about a subject that people are interested in enough to read.
RM said: “… the highly respected researcher, Dr. Joe McCord also served as the medical director for LifeVantage for a while.”
You are underplaying his involvement, either through ignorance or purposeful deception. He was an executive, an insider shareholder with a multimillion dollar interest, and received a 50 cent commission on every bottle sold. He was not merely a peripheral figure or distant adviser.
RM said: You discredit the Ohio University study as not involving humans subjects while it did, it was not a “test tube” study as you believed.”
I went back and looked at Joe’s posts and didn’t see a single instance where he discredited that study. But it appears that once again, you are being deceptive on purpose. To date, only 2 clinical trials (i.e., studies in living breathing humans) on Protandim have been published; they are as follows:
Burnham EL, McCord JM, Bose S, Brown LA, House R, Moss M, Gaydos J. Protandim does not influence alveolar epithelial permeability or intrapulmonary oxidative stress in human subjects with alcohol use disorders. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2012 Apr 1;302(7):L688-99.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22268125
Nelson SK, Bose SK, Grunwald GK, Myhill P, McCord JM. The induction of human superoxide dismutase and catalase in vivo: a fundamentally new approach to antioxidant therapy. Free Radic Biol Med. 2006 Jan 15;40(2):341-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16413416
The study that you refer, to as the “Ohio University Study” (the institution is called Ohio State University incidentally, not “Ohio University”), was not conducted in intact humans but rather in isolated ex-vivo cultured human saphenous vein preparations that were subsequently bathed in a concentrated alcohol extract of Protandim – it was clearly not a human clinical trial.
Joddar B, Reen RK, Firstenberg MS, Varadharaj S, McCord JM, Zweier JL, Gooch KJ. Protandim attenuates intimal hyperplasia in human saphenous veins cultured ex vivo via a catalase-dependent pathway. Free Radic Biol Med. 2011 Mar 15;50(6):700-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21167278
RM said: “You ask to see the word “significant” in the results of various peer-reviewed studies. That’s not the language of researchers…The word “significant” is not regularly used…”
First, no one asked “to see the word significant”. Second, it would help if you provided some context as to why this charge is relevant to anything we’ve been discussing, but regardless, it is abundantly clear that you know nothing about statistical analysis in medical research. The words “significant/non-significant” are standard language when describing the results of statistical analyses.
RM said: “For starters, you make believe that Protandim is an antioxidant where if you really understood even one of the research papers you would have learned early on that it is not so.”
I understand all of the research better than you could in 5 lifetimes. There is no research to indicate that Protandim doesn’t act as a direct antioxidant, regardless of whatever effect it might have on NRF2. There is an abundance of scientific literature, some of which I cited in my previous posts, attesting to the fact that the ingredients in Protandim act as direct antioxidants, independently of NRF2. There is every reason to presume that the same is true of the product itself. A reduction in TBARS (indicative of an antioxidant effect) was shown in the first human clinical trial, but there are no data showing that Protandim induces NRF2 in intact humans.
RM said: “The papers clearly call Protandim a Nrf2 activator…”
Which ones? It’s important when discussing the research to provide references, as I have done consistently in my comments about the product. To my knowledge only 3 of the studies even looked at NRF2, and none of them were human clinical trials – all were animal/in vitro/ex-vivo studies. It should also be pointed out that what they “call” Protandim is unimportant; it’s what they prove that matters.
RM said: “Your rather ignorant “analysis” is confusing and muddying up rather then any clarity. Too bad, really. I look over the internet, where people waaay out of their league can say things that sound “reasoned” but no better then Creationists Science when evaluated.”
Pot met kettle. Apparently, you can’t raise a single legitimate counterargument on this subject, and it is you who is clearly in over your head.
Ronaldmckenzie:
As for the “Ohio State Study,” is a vein a human subject? Are you familiar with the term “ex vivo”?
Maybe you should check that out a little more carefully before trying to correct Joe.
You say: “Here’s how I measure whether your or Lazy Man have any root in facts: Is this site part of the usual background noise that bedevils companies from multi-billion dollar old companies like Proctor Gambles on down to young much smaller companies with cutting edge products that medical practitioners from GPs to specialists such as cardiologists and internists and oncologist can understand and recommend….or is there a real fire behind all the smoke you’re blowing – in which, I would see a lot more than two blowhards pretending to know-it-all.”
Call me crazy, but I’ve always thought that the best way to see if something is based on facts…….is to actually look at the facts! Try that sometime.
Judging by your post, it is you who is out of your league.
ex vivo
In science, ex vivo refers to experimentation or measurements done in or on tissue from an organism in an external environment with the minimum alteration of natural conditions.
Paul said:”In science, ex vivo refers to experimentation or measurements done in or on tissue from an organism in an external environment with the minimum alteration of natural conditions.”
After everything that was said to in response to your recent posts, it’s troubling to see you ignore it all and reply back with a definition of ex vivo. We all know what ex vivo means. The point was that an ex vivo study is not a human clinical study. You should also realize that a vein pickled in Protandim brine is not a paradigm that represents natural conditions; it would not be considered to be even remotely indicative of what happens in humans who take the product.
Paul said: “Why do you trust the words of anonymous bloggers over that of respected MDs and PhDs?”
You don’t have any respected MDs going to bat for Protandim. By PhDs perhaps you’re referring to Shawn Talbott, who LifeVantage recently hired as their CSO and pitchman now that McCord has fled the coop with his millions. Talbott is a serial MLMer who was one of the principals behind Cortislim, which was shut down by the FTC in 2004-2005 for illegal and misleading advertising; Talbott had to liquidate all of his assets to pay a $1.12 million fine levied against him, and he was barred from making any similarly misleading sales pitches in the future. He was also let go from his junior position in the nutrition department at the University of Utah. Hardly someone that would be even remotely considered “respected’. Quite the contrary in fact.
http://www.protandimscams.com/shawn-talbotts-pulp-fiction-of-deadly-antioxidants/#comment-35370
I can’t speak for all of the anonymous bloggers here but most (Joe, Lisa, Scott, and myself included) post links to reputable sources to back up what they say — you are definitely an exception. You are unable to argue away legitimate criticism because the facts are against you, so you use this argument from authority fallacy as a crutch – pointing to alleged experts who are not part of the dialog.
Anonymous blog comments evoke suspicion when they attest to miraculous benefits of Protandim that can neither be proven nor documented. Anonymity is not an issue, however, when a commenter merely provides a URL and directs readers to facts presented by reliable sources (i.e. not your company’s brochures, paid spokespeople, or internet trolls), nor when they present perfectly sound and logical opinions that do not require fact checking.
Thanks Joe for this in depth review of Protandim. I was approached by two of their reps, and they of course claimed miracles, and asked me to watch their video: abcliveit.com and the pubmed website. however before do that, I went to the Lifevantage website and read the fine print “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”
I sent the rep this statement and he replied: because this is a natural supplement and not drugs, it may not cure or treat but again what you want to look at is what does protandim do for the body and why the body become prone to diseases, the answer is oxidative stress….”
He again asked me to watch the video first… it sounded too good to be true. Thanks again for saving me $$$. BTW I will share it on FB and Twitter.
Obaid, Im glad I was able to help and thanks also for sharing my review on facebook and twitter too.
So you are saying that you rejected Protandim before you even gave it a fair hearing?
Protandim has already had a fair hearing, despite all the perjury. You must have been sleeping when the guilty verdict was read.
What, in your opinion, constitutes a fair hearing? Obaid has clearly read opinions for and against Protandim. Why isn’t that good enough? I have heard of it from friends and relatives who sell it. I have read the anecdotal stuff, and read reviews of the scientific end of things. I have decided NOT to spend my money on this product.
Is that a fair hearing, or am I (in your opinion) obligated to spend $50-$300 before deciding, in order to give it a “fair hearing”? I hear this from my dealer friends, and I am tired of it. The “science” behind it is weak, but they want me to take their anecdotal miracle stories at face value.
If I did so, I should I also be willing to try leeches and blood letting, because there was pretty strong anecdotal evidence supporting those methods, as well. None of you are interested in MY health; you are interested in selling your product.
Sounds more like he read Joe’s objective review, looked at Lifevantage’s website, listened to the claims being made by the distributor, and came to a logical conclusion.
Greg, I did give it a fair hearing. I read the review and the argument between Joe, Vogal, LisaRob and you and the other users/distributors and the LV website. their arguments made more sense to me. as I mentioned before, even the LV website states that it doesn’t treat, prevent and cure any disease. you see, some people just believe whatever they see on TV, just because IT’S ON TV, I’m not one of those people.
when you buy anything, always read the negative reviews of the product and the seller, because the company who makes the product and their loyalist give you the positive reviews anyways, so by reading the opposition, then you can make your choice/judgement and see who makes more sense. if the company’s claim seems bogus, then you keep walking.
I got the impression that you read a lot more anti-Protandim material than pro-Protandim, and that you went into this looking for an excuse/reason to say no. That is why I don’t think you gave it a fair hearing. Why do you trust the words of anonymous bloggers over that of respected MDs and PhDs?
Greg, I’ll just point out that I’m not an anonymous blogger, however the identity of who runs the AbcLiveit site is unknown to me.
Do you know who runs ABCLiveIt.com?
Joe, you are not who I have in mind when i refer to “anonymous bloggers”. I respect that you have not tried to hide your identity. I specifically mean Vogel and LisaRob. I would be interested in knowing what their scientific qualifications are that make them more knowledgeable about this than are Dr McCord, Dr Crapo, Dr Marvin, et al.
I don’t know who put together the abcliveit website, but I will ask around. It was probably a high-ranking distributor.
Greg B said: “Joe, you are not who I have in mind when i refer to “anonymous bloggers… I specifically mean Vogel and LisaRob.”
Funny, you made no such distinction before when you tried to undermine the validity of the comments here on the basis that the sources are anonymous bloggers. So, are you now saying that Joe’s criticism is valid but everyone else’s isn’t? That would be odd indeed, since we’re saying much the same thing.
As I already pointed out, it takes no authority or expertise to post a link or to state an obvious fact. It is intellectually dishonest of you to try to dismiss those contributions, without a valid counterargument, on the basis that the source is anonymous. It matters not whether I am anonymous or a well known Nobel laureate when I state and provide solid references to support that activating NRF2 can have negative effects; or that Protandim was ineffective in a clinical trial; or that previous research published long before Protandim existed showed that curcumin and green tea act as direct antioxidants and activate NRF2 (and that vitamin C does the same thing); or that McCord did not invent the product; or that the research is plagued by conflict of interest; or that it is illegal to promote Protandim as a therapeutic agent; or that the FDA has never approved any claims about Protandim. It also doesn’t matter that I’m anonymous when I demonstrate, with ample support, that numerous statements you’ve made since you began posting here (virtually all of them) are factually incorrect/misleading.
Greg B said: “I would be interested in knowing what their scientific qualifications are that make them more knowledgeable about this than are Dr McCord, Dr Crapo, Dr Marvin, et al.”.
I don’t see McCord, Crapo, or Marvin here beside you in this losing battle you’re fighting – it’s just Greg Quixote all by himself waving his imaginary sword. McCord has nothing to do with LifeVantage anymore – he fled the scene with millions in the bank. Crapo hasn’t uttered a word about Protandim since 2005 (he was also a shareholder at the time), and old doc Marvin is a distributor (one who unfortunately makes a lot of claims about Protandim having therapeutic effects, despite the laws prohibiting such methods or product promotion). Furthermore, none of them have provided any facts anywhere to refute any of the points I’ve made here.
By invoking this weak argument from authority fallacy, you inadvertently demonstrate exactly why the company hired a guy like McCord to be the frontman. So that people like you, who know virtually nothing, can attempt to dismiss critics simply by pointing to your hired guns and saying “but they’re smarter than you.” That’s obviously an ineffective and dishonest strategy.
I shouldn’t have to point out that McCord, Crapo, and Marvin are not participating in this discussion; you are fighting this losing battle all alone Greg. But if you want to run home and grab one of your big brothers to come here and fight the battle for you, I’ll be more than happy to demonstrate my knowledge and prowess by dismantling their arguments piece by piece, just as easily as I’ve done with yours.
Greg B said: “I don’t know who put together the abcliveit website, but I will ask around. It was probably a high-ranking distributor.”
Of course you don’t know. You’re not supposed to know. That’s why it was registered anonymously. You won’t be able to find out who is responsible for that site, and if you did, you certainly wouldn’t tell us. LifeVantage has been using these anonymous sites to repost the ABC video because they don’t have copyright authorization to use it. This was documented in a company press release years ago when they stated that they no longer had a deal with ABC to post the video on their site, so instead they ignored the law and just began bootlegging it using these anonymous sites. Their willingness to violate ABC’s copyright is yet another example of LifeVantage’s dishonesty
Greg,
It doesn’t take anything more than common sense and critical thinking skills to see that this product is no “medical breakthrough.”
What have I said which would require I have a scientific credential?
*I have referenced Lifevantage’s own documents to show they lied about McCord inventing Protandim.
*I contacted a doctor at UMN to confirm a quote attributed to him regarding diabetes research and Protandim. The doctor flat out said that it was not anything he had ever said, and within a few days, the quote was taken off of Paul Myhill’s website. I can only assume the doctor contacted LV and had it removed.
*I have used PubMed’s site to show where THEY state that test tube and rodent studies don’t amount to proof that something works in humans.
*I have linked to FTC guidelines which spell out what claims supplement companies can and cannot make, and what their criteria is for a substantiated claim. It’s clear that Lifevantage can’t substantiate any claims based on those guidelines.
*I contacted a researcher at Rutgers when I was told Protandim would be great for my horse. Here is her response:
“Hello Lisa,
I looked at the information on the Protandim and I have to say you are right
in your argument. I always say that horse’s digestive systems are so
different from lab animals and humans that unless things are tested in
horses I don’t like to assume they will be just as effective.”
“On as second note, I am also leery about supplementing mixtures of herbal
products for horses. They can have various reactions to certain plants that
are not toxic to us or small animals. Plus there are so many interactions
with herbal products you really have to be careful what you do. I have
attached a review article I authored a few years ago on herbal supplements
for horses that might interest you.”
“Good luck with everything and I hope this helps.
Dr. Carey Williams”
End of quote.
As you can see, I sought out an expert rather than rely on my own knowledge or interpretation of the scientific evidence.
However, what would it matter if I did have a doctorate? Whenever a doctor or pharmacist writes something negative about Protandim, they are accused of being paid by “big pharma,” or they haven’t read all the studies, etc.
You can’t dispute the information I have presented, so you try and discredit me. The problem you have now, is that the vast majority of what I have presented does not originate from any scientific analysis on my part. The rest is just common sense…… and documents originating from Lifevantage, Paul Myhill, and Joe McCord.
Greg, I did watch the video/infomercial and read some of the Pubmed 16 articles after my last post, I wasn’t impressed. the “respected MD and PhD’s opinions and words” were biased because they are member of board of director and director of science for Lifevantage, the blogger however has nothing to gain.
the video says on (min 7:38) that “Dr Mcord is the creator of Protandim”. which is a false statement (Vogal posted the letter that the Dr himself rejected that statement). If they make that kind of a false statement, how can you trust the rest of that video/statements?
BTW, has anyone from LV ever contacted ABC’s John Quinones since 2005 to find out about his results? I’m sure he had continued taking Protandim with that kind of a result.
I’m glad you have looked at some more material. What about the Primetime report, and the published studies, did you find unconvincing? As for bias, Drs McCord, Crapo, and Perlmutter were established, highly respected scientists long before Protandim came along. do you think they would risk their hard-earned reputations for a scam product that could easily be shown to not work? Besides, how do you know the bloggers don’t have something to gain? For all we know, they could be in the employ of rival companies, or they could be shorting LifeVantage stock, like Bill Ackman is doing with Herbalife.
As for the Dr McCord as creator of Protandim, we acknowledge that such terminology was inaccurate and confusing, and no longer use it in recent literature and videos. But a lot of older stuff is still circulating. We stress[ed] Dr McCord’s role in the development of Protandim because the other fellow, Paul Myhill, does not have the academic credentials (he is just a well-informed layman), and Myhill is no longer with the company (he has a ministry running orphanages in third-world countries).
As for the Primetime report, LifeVantage had no control over that. John Quiñones and his team came in looking to debunk the claims about Protandim. They’ve done that previously with other companies and products. What they found instead was that Protandim actually did what it was claimed to do. Yes, Mr Quiñones does still take Protandim, as does Donny Osmond (who looks and acts like he is twenty years younger than he really is) and Ozzie Newsome, the general manager of the Baltimore Ravens football team.
Greg B said: “As for bias, Drs McCord, Crapo, and Perlmutter were established, highly respected scientists long before Protandim came along. do you think they would risk their hard-earned reputations for a scam product that could easily be shown to not work?”
I can’t speak for Crapo (a former LFVN insider shareholder incidentally), nor is there any need to because he hasn’t uttered a word about Protandim in 9 years, but as for McCord, I don’t THINK he risked his reputation for a scam product shown not to work; it’s plainly evident that that is in fact exactly what he did. His “reputation” had no monetary value; but he walked/ran away with millions of dollars that he never could have made by continuing on an academic track. He sold out (for an astronomical amount of money), plain and simple.
Greg B said: “Besides, how do you know the bloggers don’t have something to gain? For all we know, they could be in the employ of rival companies, or they could be shorting LifeVantage stock, like Bill Ackman is doing with Herbalife.”
Why speculate about what you don’t know when there are facts, which we know for certain, proving that the people involved in promoting Protandim have a financial conflict of interest. The suggestion that the people criticizing Protandim work for a rival MLM is absurd. All MLM supplement companies are about as scammy as LifeVantage. I would never endorse or promote any of them, for the same reasons that I am vehemently opposed to the deceptive business practices of LifeVantage. Furthermore, the “rival MLM” argument is a red herring; a fact remains a fact regardless of where it came from. If I worked at Herbalife and said that 2 + 2 = 4, would you argue otherwise? As for shorting the stock, if someone were making a short play there would be evidence (i.e. you could see the short position on stock trading sites); however, there is none.
Greg B said: “As for the Dr McCord as creator of Protandim, we acknowledge that such terminology was inaccurate and confusing, and no longer use it in recent literature and videos.”
How big of you. Except it wasn’t merely “inaccurate and confusing”. It was purposefully deceptive. There’s a big difference. Don’t try to portray a lie this egregious as a mere accident or innocuous slip of the tongue.
Greg B said: “We stress[ed] Dr McCord’s role in the development of Protandim because the other fellow, Paul Myhill, does not have the academic credentials (he is just a well-informed layman), and Myhill is no longer with the company (he has a ministry running orphanages in third-world countries).”
Yes, precisely; and you are now owning up to this act of deception only because you were forced to after it was revealed by the same anonymous bloggers that you have consistently tried to besmirch. To recap: McCord did not invent the product; a layman with no credentials whipped it up in a couple of months after the Ceremedix analog didn’t pan out, and because Myhill wasn’t sufficiently impressive, they hired McCord and began deceiving the public into thinking that it was he, and not Myhill, who invented Protandim
Greg B said: “As for the Primetime report, LifeVantage had no control over that.”
Wrong again. On Feb 15, 2005, LifeVantage announced that they had hired a PR firm (Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide), which then sought out product placement opportunities on the company’s behalf; Primetime was one of them. The spot aired a few months later in June 2005. The people interviewed were all Protandim investors.
Greg B said: “John Quiñones and his team came in looking to debunk the claims about Protandim. They’ve done that previously with other companies and products. What they found instead was that Protandim actually did what it was claimed to do.”
Without delving into the details of that shoddy promotional advertorial, a well-designed randomized placebo-controlled double blind clinical trial of Protandim [Burnham et al. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2012 Apr 1;302(7):L688-99], clearly showed that it DOES NOT do what it is claimed to do (lower oxidative stress/TBARS).
Greg B said: “Yes, Mr Quiñones does still take Protandim…”
1. Prove it.
2. So what?
Greg B said: “…as does Donny Osmond (who looks and acts like he is twenty years younger than he really is)”
Osmond was paid to be a spokesman for the product. If he looks young for his age it’s because of numerous plastic surgeries and Botox, not Protandim.
ftp://ftp.sec.gov/edgar/data/849146/0001299933-11-002833.txt
Paul said: “Why do you trust the words of anonymous bloggers over that of respected MDs and PhDs?”
You don’t have any respected MDs going to bat for Protandim. By PhDs perhaps you’re referring to Shawn Talbott, who Monavie recently hired as their CSO and pitchman now that McCord has fled the coop with his millions. Talbott is a serial MLMer who was one of the principals behind Cortislim, which was shut down by the FTC in 2004-2005 for illegal and misleading advertising; Talbott had to liquidate all of his assets to pay a $1.12 million fine levied against him, and he was barred from making any similarly misleading sales pitches in the future. He was also let go from his junior position in the nutrition department at the University of Utah. Hardly someone that would be even remotely considered “respected’. Quite the contrary in fact.
http://www.protandimscams.com/shawn-talbotts-pulp-fiction-of-deadly-antioxidants/#comment-35370
I can’t speak for all of the anonymous bloggers here but most (Joe, Lisa, Scott, and myself included) post links to reputable sources to back up what they say — you are definitely an exception. You are unable to argue away legitimate criticism because the facts are against you, so you use this argument from authority fallacy as a crutch – pointing to alleged experts who are not part of the dialog.
Anonymous blog comments evoke suspicion when they attest to miraculous benefits of Protandim that can neither be proven nor documented. Anonymity is not an issue, however, when a commenter merely provides a URL and directs readers to facts presented by reliable sources (i.e. not your company’s brochures, paid spokespeople, or internet trolls), nor when they present perfectly sound and logical opinions that do not require fact checking.
I can point you to one very reputable MD who backs Protandim fully–Dr Norman Marvin, who before his retirement was on the faculty of two medical schools–KU and ORU. At the latter he was head of the family medicine department. You can find out more about him, and why he is so enthused about Protandim that he has become a leading distributor, at his website–docmarvin.com
Don’t point me to Marvin the distributor. I already know he exists. Not only is he an embarrassment to his profession, he has not engaged in any dialog here nor has he disputed any of the facts presented. But by all means, bring him by to fight your battle for you.