(Updated 7/17/20). Have you heard of the anti-aging supplement Protandim? Maybe you saw a YouTube video of when Protandim was featured on ABC's PrimeTime? Protandim called an “Nrf2 activator” has been said to be the “only supplement clinically proven to reduce oxidative stress in humans by an average of 40 percent in 30 days.” That’s fancy talk for Protandim is a type of antioxidant supplement. Unlike other products, Protandim is said to work by helping the body increase its own natural antioxidant enzymes. Sounds good, but does Protandim work, or is it a scam? These are some of the questions I will address in this review. The good news is there are clinical studies on Protandim. I will use that research in this review and help you understand it. By the end of this review, you'll have a better idea if Protandim is right for you.
Other Anti-Aging Supplement Reviews
What Is Protandim?
Protandim might sound like a drug but it's really a dietary supplement. It's said to combat free radical damage (oxidative stress) by stimulating the production of the body's own natural antioxidant enzymes such as catalase, superoxide dismutase (SOD), and glutathione.
The idea goes like this: instead of taking individual antioxidant supplements (like vitamins C, E, etc.) in the hopes they will battle free radicals and combat aging and disease, Protandim is supposed to augment or ramp up your own naturally occurring free radical defenses.
It's a novel concept to be sure.
The supplement website (LifeVantage.com) says the supplement is “clinically proven to reduce oxidative stress to levels of that of a 20-year-old.” Oxidative stress refers to the stress (cellular damage) caused by free radicals.
What Does The Name Mean?
My guess is the name was chosen because the ingredients are supposed to “pro-actively” work in “tandim” to help defend us against aging and disease.
Who Makes Protandim?
Protandim is a product of a company called LifeVantage Corporation. LifeVantage is actually a publicly traded stock on the NASDAQ. Its stock symbol is LFVN.
The company is located at 9785 S. Monroe Street, Suite 300 Sandy, UT 84070. If you google this address you will see a building with “LifeVantage” at the top. That is good. It tells us the company has a physical location.
Contact LifeVantage
Call the company at 866-460-7241.
The Better Business Bureau gave LifeVantage an A- rating when this review was updated. See the BBB file for updates and more information.
Protandim Ingredients
According to the product's website, there are 5 ingredients in each caplet of Protandim which add up to 625 mg:
| Amount Per Serving (1 caplet) | Percent Daily Value |
|---|---|
| Calcium (as dicalcum phosphate & calcium carbonate) 77 mg | 8% DV |
| Proprietary Blend Consisting of the following | 675 mg |
| Milk thistle extract (Silybum marianum) seed. | |
| Bacopa extract (Bacopa monnieri) whole herb | |
| Ashwagandha extract (Withania somnifera) root | |
| Green tea extract (Camellia sinensis) leaf | |
| Turmeric extract (Curcuma longa) rhizome |
Notice in the table above they tell us the source of each ingredient:
- The milk thistle extract is derived from the seeds of the plant
- The bacopa extract is derived from the whole plant
- The ashwagandha extract is derived from the root of the plant
- The green tea extract comes from the leaves of the plant
- The turmeric extract is derived from the underground stems (rhizome) of the plant
Other Ingredients
The supplement label also tells the supplement has these other ingredients:
- Microcrystalline Cellulose
- Croscarmellose Sodium Silica
- Modified Cellulose
- Stearic Acid
- Magnesium Stearate
- Maltodextrin
- Medium Chain Triglycerides
These other ingredients play no role in the effects or benefits of the product. They make up the caplets and/or help with the delivery of the ingredients into the body.
I want to commend the LifeVantage company for sponsoring much of the research below. It's rare to find a product with so many clinical studies.
Protandim Research
Protandim is different from a lot of supplements because there really is clinical research on this product. Below is a summary of the Protandim research with links to the studies for those who want to see them for themselves.
Because scientific studies can be wordy and complicated for most people, I will summarize the study and put the research in the proper context to make it easier to understand.
2016 Protandim Research
Study
The Effect of Protandim® Supplementation on Athletic Performance and Oxidative Blood Markers in Runners.
Study summary: In this investigation, researchers tested if taking Protandim (675 mg/day) for 90 days would improve 5K running performance and reduce TBARS. The study involved 38 runners who were randomly given either Protandim or a placebo.
Results: After 90 days, those taking Protandim (1x/day) showed no improvement in running performance compared to those taking the placebo. In addition, Protandim did not reduce TBARS or alter levels of antioxidant enzymes superoxide dismutase (SOD) or glutathione peroxidase (GPX) during resting periods. The researchers report however that in those over age 35, Protandim improved SOD twice as much as those taking the placebo.
See the full review of this study
Study
Longer lifespan in male mice treated with a weakly estrogenic agonist, an antioxidant, an α-glucosidase inhibitor or an Nrf2-inducer.
Study summary: Here, researchers sought to determine what effect various compounds had on extending the life of mice. Protandim was one of the compounds tested. The other compounds tested in the study were fish oil, ursodeoxycholic acid (a bile acid, used to dissolve gall stones), and the diabetes drug, metformin. Different mice received the different compounds for their entire lifespan.
Beginning at 10 months of age, mice received Protandim at a dosage of 600 parts per million (ppm) in their food. This amount was chosen because it was similar to the Protandim dosage used by people. When the mice were 17 months old, the dosage was increased to 1200 ppm because this was thought to be better.
Study results: researchers noted male mice getting Protandim had a 7% increase in average lifespan. The supplement did not lengthen the life span of female mice. The researchers also point out that while the average lifespan was increased, the maximum lifespan did not increase. Regardless, this was a mouse study.
2013 Protandim Research
Study
Study
Upregulation of phase II enzymes through phytochemical activation of Nrf2 protects cardiomyocytes against oxidant stress
Study results: Researchers noted that mouse heart cells treated with Protandim increased the production of an antioxidant/anti-inflammatory enzyme called Heme oxygenase 1 (HO-1) as well as Nrf2. This was a test-tube study using isolated mouse heart cells.
This investigation is derived from a Masters's Thesis in 2010. The title of the MS Thesis is “UPREGULATION OF HEME OXYGENASE-1 AND ACTIVATION OF NRF2 BY THE PHYTOCHEMICALS IN PROTANDIM .” It is not unusual for a quality MS thesis or other graduate work to go through the peer-review process and be published.
2012 Protandim Research
Study
Antioxidants for the Treatment of Patients with Severe Angioproliferative Pulmonary Hypertension? Published in the journal, Antioxidants in Redox Signaling.
Summary: This is a rat study. Protandim increased antioxidant enzymes in rats, protecting the hearts from damage.
Study
Phytochemical activation of Nrf2 protects human coronary artery endothelial cells against an oxidative challenge published in the journal, Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity.
Summary: This is a test tube study. Human coronary (heart) artery cells were treated with Protandim (20 micrograms per milliliter) or placebo (ethanol). All cells were then treated with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to induce free radical damage. Cells treated with Protandim showed less cell death than those getting the placebo.
Study
Protandim does not influence alveolar epithelial permeability or intrapulmonary oxidative stress in human subjects with alcohol use disorders.
Summary: This investigation showed the supplement did not work. To be fair, this was a strange study. Researchers looked at 30 alcoholics . The researchers stuck tubes down the throats of the subjects to take fluid samples from their lungs. They randomly gave the people 1350 mg of Protandim per day or a placebo, for a week. They tested for various things to see if Protandim helped the people. It didn’t.
I don't know how relevant this study is to whether Protandim works or not. I mentioned it because it was a human study. For a much more in-depth review of this study—written by a doctor—see the review posted on ScienceBasedMedicine.org.
2011 Protandim Research
Study
Oxidative stress in health and disease: the therapeutic potential of Nrf2 activation.
Summary: This is a test tube study. Essentially, Protandim altered cellular pathways involved in antioxidant enzyme production and colon cancer, cardiovascular disease (heart disease), and Alzheimer's disease. This is encouraging, but, humans are more complicated than isolated cells. This study doesn’t prove the supplement reduces the risk of any of these diseases.
Study
The role of manganese superoxide dismutase in skin cancer.
Summary: This is a mouse study. Here, researchers reported the supplement reduced tumor growth in mice. For the most part, this appears to be a review of previous research relating free radical damage to the development of skin cancer.
Study
Protandim attenuates intimal hyperplasia in human saphenous veins cultured ex vivo via a catalase-dependent pathway.
Summary. This is a test tube study. Basically, a blood vessel was bathed in Protandim. Researchers noted the supplement reduced the thickening of vein cells.
2010 Protandim Research
Study
The Dietary Supplement Protandim Decreases Plasma Osteopontin and Improves Markers of Oxidative Stress in Muscular Dystrophy Mdx Mice.
Summary. This is a mouse study. Mice were genetically created to have muscular dystrophy. They were given Protandim at a dosage similar to what is recommended for humans. After 6 months, the mice given Protandim showed a 46%reduction in the free radical breakdown of fat (TBARS). TBARS stand for ThiobarBituric Acid Reactive Substances.
The greater the TBAR level, the greater free radical damage. Thus, reducing TBARS is taken to be a good thing. This doesn't prove Protandim helps muscular dystrophy. People with muscular dystrophy should discuss this with their doctor for greater insights.
Study
The chemopreventive effects of Protandim: modulation of p53 mitochondrial translocation and apoptosis during skin carcinogenesis.
Summary: This is a mouse study. Protandim reduced damage to the mitochondria of mouse cells. of this study. The mitochondria, often called the “powerhouse” of the cell, make energy —and makes free radicals in the process. The mitochondria are a major area of anti-aging research.
Study
Chronic pulmonary artery pressure elevation is insufficient to explain right heart failure.
Summary. This is a rat study. Researchers tested if the supplement helped pulmonary blood pressure. After 6 weeks, Protandim did not reduce pulmonary artery blood pressure or the number of lung lesions. These researchers did say “our data point to a cardioprotective effect of Protandim.” But, this is a vague statement.
2009 Protandim Research
Study
Protandim, a fundamentally new antioxidant approach in chemoprevention using mouse two-stage skin carcinogenesis as a model.
Summary: This is a mouse study.
Study
Synergistic induction of heme oxygenase-1 by the components of the antioxidant supplement Protandim.
Summary: This is a test tube study. Cells treated with supplements showed significant increases in glutathione, an antioxidant compound. This is the study LifeVantage lists as “proof” Protandim increases glutathione levels by 300%. It may raise glutathione 300% – in a test tube – but does the same effect occur in people?
2006 Protandim Research
Study
The induction of human superoxide dismutase and catalase in vivo: a fundamentally new approach to antioxidant therapy.
This is a human study. 39 healthy men and women, age 20-78 years were given Protandim (675 mg per day) between 30 and 120 days.
Study Summary:
1. Protandim caused a significant increase in the antioxidant superoxide dismutase (SOD) in red blood cells.
2. TBARS declined by 40% after 30 days
3. SOD in red blood cells increased by 30% after 120 days
4. Catalase decreased by 40% after 120 days
5. There was a non-significant rise (4.9%) in uric acid.
6. No change in CRP levels was seen.
7. No change in HDL, LDL or triglycerides were seen.
Protandim Research Summary
Here is a quick summary of the research:
| Study Year / Title | Study Type (Human, mouse, etc.) |
| 2016 Research | |
| The Effect of Protandim Supplementation on Athletic Performance and Oxidative Blood Markers in Runners | Humans |
| Longer lifespan in male mice treated with a weakly estrogenic agonist, an antioxidant, an α-glucosidase inhibitor or a Nrf2-inducer | mice |
| 2013 Research | |
| Upregulation of phase II enzymes through phytochemical activation of Nrf2 protects cardiomyocytes against oxidant stress | Mouse heart cells |
| 2012 Research | |
| Antioxidants for the treatment of patients with severe angioproliferative pulmonary hypertension? | Rats |
| Phytochemical Activation of Nrf2 Protects Human Coronary Artery Endothelial Cells against an Oxidative Challenge | Test tube study |
| Protandim does not influence alveolar epithelial permeability or intrapulmonary oxidative stress in human subjects with alcohol use disorders. | Humans |
| 2011 Research | |
| Oxidative stress in health and disease: the therapeutic potential of Nrf2 activation. | Test tube study |
| The Role of Manganese Superoxide Dismutase in Skin Cancer | Mice |
| Protandim attenuates intimal hyperplasia in human saphenous veins cultured ex vivo via a catalase-dependent pathway | Test tube study |
| 2010 Research | |
| The Dietary Supplement Protandim® Decreases Plasma Osteopontin and Improves Markers of Oxidative Stress in Muscular Dystrophy Mdx Mice | Mice |
| The Chemopreventive Effects of Protandim: Modulation of p53 Mitochondrial Translocation and Apoptosis during Skin Carcinogenesis | Mice |
| Chronic Pulmonary Artery Pressure Elevation Is Insufficient to Explain Right Heart Failure | Rats |
| 2009 Research | |
| Protandim, a Fundamentally New Antioxidant Approach in Chemoprevention Using Mouse Two-Stage Skin Carcinogenesis as a Model | Mice |
| Synergistic induction of heme oxygenase-1 by the components of the antioxidant supplement Protandim. | Test tube study |
| 2006 Research | |
| The induction of human superoxide dismutase and catalase in vivo: a fundamentally new approach to antioxidant therapy. | Humans |
To be fair, it's possible I may have missed some research. I'll update this table as I become aware of new research.
My Thoughts On The Research
While Protandim has been the subject of several clinical investigations, only 3 of them involved humans. They are:
- The 2006 study (click to see study)
- The 2012 study (click to see study)
- The 2016 study (click to see the study)
Protandim And Weight Loss
Can Protaindm help you lose weight? There is no good evidence for this. None of the above clinical investigations was about weight loss. To the credit of LifeVangage, they do not market this supplement for weight reduction.
Protandim And Multiple Sclerosis
Is this supplement worthwhile if you have Multiple sclerosis (MS)? Some have put forth the idea that disruption of free radical stress – via stabilizing Nrf2 (the stuff this supplement is supposed to improve) – might help MS. So, is there any proof? There was an investigation presented in 2011 at the 5th Joint triennial congress of the European and Americas Committees for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
The title of the presentation was: Nrf2 activators: a novel strategy to promote oligodendrocyte survival in multiple sclerosis? Here, researchers treated rat and human oligodendrocytes with several compounds ― one of which was Protandim ― and then exposed the cells to a chemical to create free radical damage.
These researchers noted Protandim was seen as “the most potent inducer” of Nrf2 antioxidant enzymes defenses. In other words, Protandim helped the most.
This is intriguing, but it's not the same as giving it to people with MS to see if their symptoms improved.
There is also some evidence that stimulating Nrf2 might reduce cellular inflammation via inhibition of NFkb. Inhibition of NFkb is also something another supplement – called Anatabloc – was supposed to do. Currently, though there is little human proof for Protandim improving quality of life in those with MS.
See the Anatabloc review.
Protandim And ABC Primetime
In 2005, this supplement was featured on ABC's Primetime news show. In this segment, ABC correspondent John Quinones met with Dr. Joe McCord, a respected researcher whose name appears on many of the Protandim clinical studies. According to his Wikipedia page, as a grad student, Dr. McCord was involved with the discovery of Superoxide Dismutase, an important free radical savaging enzyme. Here is the ABC Primetime segment :
Basically, John Quinones gets a blood test to measure his TBAR level (an indicator of oxidative stress). He's given Protandim for 2 weeks and then returns to the lab where he has his blood tested again.
Dr. McCord tells John Quinones the supplement caused a “45% reduction” in oxidative stress and goes on to say this is the level seen in a “newborn baby”. The ABC Primetime segment is often used as proof the supplement really works. But, as I see it, one problem is John Quinones doesn't have is blood tested by an independent lab. This is bad science in my opinion.
Of course, the Primetime segment is interesting. But it's been over a decade since this segment aired. You'd think such an impressive result would warrant a follow-up. I wish Primetime and John Quinones would do a follow-up story.
Update. Dr. McCord is now involved with the PB125 supplement.
Protandim And The FDA
In 2017, the FDA reached out to LifeVantage to inform them they considered Protandim to be a drug and not a supplement based on claims made about it as an NRF2 Synergizer. Basically, the FDA was saying the claims being made at the time, made people think the supplement could treat disease. This is something not allowed under US supplement regulation. This may be the reason for the dramatic change in the LifeVantage website and marketing. There are no more claims about the effects of the supplement. Instead, the company now calls itself “a wellness and personal care company” and makes references to “bio-hacking.”
Do Doctors Endorse Protandim?
While the supplement is not endorsed by the American Medical Association (they don't endorse any supplement), I'm sure some physicians believe in it – and others who don't.
Does Protandim Have Caffeine?
According to the product website, each tablet has 1.8mg of caffeine. That's much less than in a cup of coffee and most energy drinks. I don't think this small amount would keep people up at night, but because we are all different it might be wise to not take it close to bedtime.
Is It Kosher?
No. this supplement is not kosher or organic. It is however made in the US. That is good.
Protandim Side Effects
Are there any Protandim dangers out there? I don't think so. I believe this supplement is pretty safe. I am not aware of any side effects. That said, here are a few general things you might want to think about if your not healthy. This list is not complete:
- Start with less than the recommended dosage for the first week to see how you respond
- Speak to your doctor/ pharmacist if you are pregnant or breastfeeding
- Stop taking the supplement at least 2 weeks before having surgery
- Speak to your doctor /pharmacist if you take any prescription drugs like blood thinners
One study noted the supplement might raise uric acid levels (by 4.9%). Would this be bad for those who suffer from gout? Currently, there is no direct proof gout pain is increased by Protandim. See the review of Tart Cherry Juice for more info.
While allergic reactions are likely uncommon, LifeVantage does mention this possibility in some people. Specific symptoms mentioned on the LifeVantage website include:
- gastrointestinal disturbances (i.e., stomach ache, diarrhea, vomiting)
- sometimes as a headache or rash on the hands or feet
Stop taking the supplement if you experience these symptoms.
The company website warns against using the supplement if you are undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy for cancer. This is likely because of the unknowns of combining antioxidants with some cancer therapies. If you have cancer or are getting treatment for it, ask your doctor. I'm glad the LifeVantage company informs people about this.
LifeVantage also stresses the importance of talking to a doctor if you have any autoimmune disease like arthritis or Type I diabetes. I'm not aware of any problems in anyone but I appreciated the company mentioning this.
How To Measure Your TBARS
Remember TBARS are a measure of free radical damage (oxidative stress) of cells. Protandim is said to reduce TBARS. The TBAR test is also called a Lipid Peroxidase test. Ask your physician about this test. For those who really want to know if Protandim is working, getting this test done first—and a month later— might be a good idea. I'm not sure if insurance covers the test or not. Talk to your doctor for more information on this.
Aged Garlic Extract also has some evidence it might reduce TBARS (click to see review)
TrueScience Brand
True Science is a brand name under which various beauty products made by the company can be identified. Products offered under the True Science brand include:
- Shampoo
- Scalp serum
- Facial cleanser
- Eye serum
What is PhysIQ?
PhysIQ is the brand name associated with various fitness-related products. This brand includes:
- Fat burn supplements
- Prebiotics
- Whey protein
- Appetite suppressants
Protandim For Dogs
Protandim Dogs (formally called Canine Health) is for pets. According to the LifeVantage website, this supplement contains 150 mg of the same ingredients as Protandim – as well as omega 3 fatty acids and collagen. The website goes on to say: “Reducing oxidative stress in dogs may reduce many of the disorders associated with aging in canine.” To support this, the organization states a 3rd party animal health company has found the supplement reduces oxidative stress in dogs.
Protandim vs. PB125
PB125, by Pathways Bioscience, is another supplement whose makers claim can reduce TBARS and activate NrF2. PB125 is the supplement by Dr. Joe McCord and associates. Recall Dr. McCord used to be associated with the LifeVantage company.
While PB125 is said to be the next generation of NrF2 activators, no studies have yet compared these supplements to each other to see which is better. The ingredients in both products are different for the most part.
See the PB125 Review for much more information.
Protandim vs. Tru Niagen
The Tru Niagen supplement boasts research showing it can raise NAD+ levels in humans. Tru Niagen is based on nicotniamide riboside a form of niacin (vitamin B3).
The idea of slowing aging by raising NAD+ is different than Protandim. So far no clinical studies have compared these supplements to each other. While the original Protandim does not contain nicotinamide riboside, the Life Vantage company does offer another version called the “NAD Synergizer” which contains niacin.
Protandim vs. Elysium Basis
Basis by Elysium is a popular anti-aging supplement that contains very different ingredients than Protandim. Like Tru Niagen, Elysium Basis also is an NAD+ booster supplement. So, which is better? Unfortunately, there are no head-to-head studies yet.
See the Elysuim Basis Review for more insights.
Protandim vs. SeroVital
You've probably seen TV ads for SeroVital. How does Protandim compare to SeroVital? Both supplements contain different ingredients and are touted to work differently.
While Protandim is said to help boost our bodies antioxidant enzymes, SeroVital is marketed to raise human growth hormone (HGH).
If we just look at the research, Protandim wins hands down. The makers of Serovital only have one study.
Where To Buy Protandim
This supplement is not sold in stores like Walmart, Target, Cosco, CVS, Walgreens, Kmart, or BJs. It's also not sold at GNC or Vitamin Shoppe. Rather, it's mostly purchased from LifeVantage independent distributors.
It is also available online as well although when using a distributor, you may get the individualized attention you might not get by buying it yourself.
Protandim Price
According to the LifeVantage website, a one-month supply (30 capsules) costs $59.99 retail. If you order it through a LifeVantage distributor, it costs $49.99 – and that is on a monthly basis. In other words, that means auto-shipments. If you want to purchase one month only to test drive it first, speak to your LifeVantgage independent distributor.
Protandim Yearly Cost
Let's round the price up to $50 a month. In one year, the supplement would cost you $600. Shipping and tax may be extra. If you only want to order 1 bottle to try yourself, you can get it on Amazon too.
My Suggestions
If you can afford it, go ahead and give it a try for a month or so and see if you feel any better. If you really want to know for sure, get your TBARS measured first.
Remember, exercise will also reduce TBARS too.
Protandim Pro & Con
Here's a quick summary of what I liked and didn't like. These are my opinions. Yours may be different.
| Pro | Con |
|---|---|
| There are clinical studies on Protandim | Not all the studies are on humans |
| Company has been around a long time | Not available in stores |
| Company sponsors research on Protandim | Expensive |
| Lots of hype about benefits |
Does Protandim Work?
While I'm intrigued at the prospect of slowing down aging, I'm can't say for sure if Protandim works or not. The research is intriguing but in my opinion three's not enough human research yet to draw conclusions. So, does Protandim really work? Let's just say I'm looking forward to more human clinical studies.
Here is it is on Amazon If you want to check it out/see what others are saying
Greg said: “Here is a link to a recently released study of Protandim, done by the University of Montreal. Note that Dr McCord’s name is NOT on the study, and the Lifevantage did NOT conduct or pay for this study. ”
Do you not realize that this is not a peer-reviewed journal publication. It is a Master’s student’s solo-authored thesis. And it was not “done by the University of Montreal”; it was done AT the University of Montreal. There’s a world of difference and it’s dishonest of you to guild the lily like that. Worse, the thesis doesn’t list any funding disclosure information at all, so there is no evidence that LifeVantage had no role in the funding or execution. It’s far too great a stretch of the imagination to suppose that a faculty supervisor would assign a Master’s student to studying Protandim in the absence of a quid pro quo relationship.
And why just throw this worthless piece of paper at us without trying to make a point about what the research actually said? You demonstrate precisely why it is that this dying company generates such worthless pap. It’s to give misleading promotional fodder to their distributors; it has nothing to do with advancing science.
Same BS, different day.
BTW, still enjoying LifeVantage now that most of the senior execs have bailed and the stock is in the process of being de-listed from the NASDAQ, after losing half its value in less than a year? Does that sound like a company with a cure-all? A cure-anything even? Of course not. The curtains have been peeled back on the LifeVantage scam. There’s nothing left to defend Greg.
I’ve been following the stock also Vogel. Biggest indicator of a company really.
Game over Greg. GAME OVER.
The difference between “by” and “at” here is rather small, and of no real matter, since the university allowed the study to be published with its name on it. The fact is that the research was deemed relevant enough, and passed the professors’ scientific scrutiny enough to warrant its being published. You have no evidence whatever that LV had anything to do with this study, so your subtle accusation that LV bribed the professor to have this study done is borderline libelous.
You have no grounds for saying this study is “worthless pap”. Have you done your own studies that say that Nrf2 activation does not help with OA? Do you know of any studies which say that? Have you any evidence, or even reason to believe, that the people who did this study performed bad science? Are you not besmirching the name of the University of Montreal, which is ranked by The Times Higher Education World University Rankings of 2012-2013 as one of the top 100 universities worldwide?
Also, what does the stock price of LV have to do with this study? Nothing, so why bring it up?
Greg said: “The difference between “by” and “at” here is rather small, and of no real matter, since the university allowed the study to be published with its name on it.”
The difference is significant and your responsibility as a self-appointed spokesperson for the company (and as a distributor with legal obligations) is to be accurate and truthful in your representations. The truth is that U Montreal did not conduct the study that was described in that thesis – a young student AT the University conducted it solo. The University itself takes no responsibility. Instead of doubling down on your deception, you should have immediately apologized for it.
Greg said: “The fact is that the research was deemed relevant enough, and passed the professors’ scientific scrutiny enough to warrant its being published.”
The standards for inclusion in a Master’s thesis and those for publishing a study in a peer-reviewed scientific journal are light years apart. The latter are far more stringent, and this students’ “study” has not met that standard.
Greg said: “You have no evidence whatever that LV had anything to do with this study, so your subtle accusation that LV bribed the professor to have this study done is borderline libelous.”
I made no accusation about bribery, subtle or otherwise. It was you who claimed: “here is a link… note that… Lifevantage did NOT conduct or pay for this study.” In fact, there was no evidence in the link you provided to support your claim of research independence; it provided no disclosures or funding details. Hence, i was clearly you who was being misleading. I merely pointed out that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it would be a logical assumption that LifeVantage was involved in some capacity, as they have been in every other bit of the faux-research done to date.
.
Greg said: “You have no grounds for saying this study is “worthless pap”. Have you done your own studies that say that Nrf2 activation does not help with OA?”
Oh, so now we cut to the chase. You’re going to use this student’s in vitro “study” in a misleading and illegal attempt to portray Protandim – that worthless spicy garbage pill – as a remedy for osteoarthritis. Your attempt at shifting the burden to me to prove that Pretendim doesn’t cure arthritis is preposterously dishonest. The simple fact is that LifeVantage has not even come close to providing minimal acceptable evidence that their product has any therapeutic effect whatsoever on arthritis (or anything else); and this student’s thesis sure doesn’t qualify in that regard. It’s not even in English Greg, and I can take a pretty safe guess that you can’t understand what it says (safely assuming that you’re not fluent in French), and even if it were in English, it would still be over your head.
Greg said: “Are you not besmirching the name of the University of Montreal, which is ranked by The Times Higher Education World University Rankings of 2012-2013 as one of the top 100 universities worldwide?”
I already called you out for deceptively suggesting that the University of Montreal is ultimately responsible for the study, when in fact that’s simply not the case. This was the work of a student; it is not the work of the University itself and the University takes no responsibility for the integrity of the work. It’s very telling that you try to hide behind the University’s mantle of authority nonetheless.
Greg said: “Also, what does the stock price of LV have to do with this study? Nothing, so why bring it up?”
I didn’t bring it up in connection with the study; I did so as a side note, and that should have been obvious to you. The stock was mentioned in the lead article, and it has been mentioned many times by the company and its distributors as a sign of the company’s success and stability. They took great delight in telling consumers that the company was publicly traded on the NASDAQ.
The stock itself is relevant as part of the big picture, which includes declining revenue and distributor numbers, the exodus of senior executives and distributors, a share price that’s gone into freefall, and pending delisting from the NASDAQ for underperformance (in addition to the litany of other black marks on the product and the company that have been exposed here in detail). None of that is even remotely consistent with the notion that Protandim is a wonder cure, which you, the company, and its distributors have been trying to mislead the public into believing. It’s indicative of a scam that has finally run its course. Good riddance to LifeVantage, and to you Greg, one of their most tireless apologists/propagandists/spin doctors.
Quick correction to my previous post — the thesis in in fact in English, not French. Greg and others laypersons still won’t understand the details though.
I just started sifting through the details of the dosing protocols in the student’s thesis and immediately found a glaring error. On page 51, it says:
“Animals with DMM received intraarticular injection (10 mL) of saline solution (0.9 g/L NaCl) or Protandim at 1 mg/ml.”
It can’t possibly be the case that they injected 10 mL, a massive volume relative to a mouse, into the joint space. It has to be typo and what the student actually meant was 10 uL (microliters, not milliliters – a 1,000-fold difference). The 10-week-old mice in this study were 129S6/SvEvTac strain, and according the breeder of this strain, Taconic Biosciences, they would weigh roughly 28 g at age 10 weeks.
http://www.taconic.com/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urlimage&blobkey=id&blobtable=TA_Media&blobwhere=1347215381317&ssbinary=true
A body weight of 28 g corresponds to a body volume of roughly 28 mL (roughly half the size of a shot-glass), and the knee joint space would be a minuscule fraction of that volume.
And just to drive home the point that the author made an error, here are other studies that confirm that standard injection volume into the joint space is in the range of 6 to 30 u — nowhere near 10 mL.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4053306/pdf/1479-5876-12-157.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2817653/
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZDJ45T4T5YIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA245#v=onepage&q&f=false
I took pains to demonstrate that this is in fact a mistake because it’s a significant glaring typo to anyone who has experience in the field or a bit of commonsense knowledge about relative volume, and it’s exactly the kind of characteristic that sets apart peer-reviewed research, conducted and published by experts, from a thesis written by a Master’s degree candidate. If anyone on the student’s review committee had bothered to read the thesis carefully, they would have caught the error. The same holds true for execution of research; Master’s degree students simply do not have the experience, skills, and reliability of a veteran researcher or even a good technician. A Master’s student would barely have time to get their feet wet in the lab, and all told, will spend probably about a year on average working part-time for a few hours a day in the lab at most. Make no mistake about it — a Master’s degree candidate is not referred to as a scientist, for good reason.
So when Greg comes here brandishing this dubious link to promote Protandim, it evokes a mix of laughter and disgust. LifeVantage has been in business for a long time and yet, instead of advancing, their research has now regressed to in vitro/in vivo experiments conducted and written up by neophyte students. That’s very telling. If the company had any valid reason to think that their product would help with a medical condition, they would by now have conducted the necessary R&D to take it clinical trials and ultimately FDA approval, reaping billions in ROI. In the past, they’ve had sufficient cash on hand to fund proper clinical trials, and even if they didn’t, they could have easily raised funding from outside investors to properly research and advance the product.
LifeVantage swapped their liar-in-chief McCord, who was paid millions, with a student in Montreal and Shawn Talbott — a guy who got fined millions, had his assets seized, and was fired his academic position at U Utah for illegally advertising Cortislim. It would be downright comical if it weren’t the fact that some people have actually bought into the company’s BS and gotten burned in the process.
http://www.protandimscams.com/shawn-talbotts-pulp-fiction-of-deadly-antioxidants/#comment-35370
And now the company is falling apart at the seams, as indicated by their 50% stock price plunge in the past year, defection of execs and senior distributors, and declining sales
At this point, where the company is today and with all with that we know about it, it would be idiotic to even entertain the notion that Protandim does anything therapeutically beneficial.
Here is a link to a recently released study of Protandim, done by the University of Montreal. Note that Dr McCord’s name is NOT on the study, and the Lifevantage did NOT conduct or pay for this study.
https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/handle/1866/11778
Thanks for this link. Reading the entire paper, it is in no way biased toward protandim. In fact, they included 6-Gingerol and a synthetic NRF2 activator. The 6-Gingerol was even more effective than protandim and it was used on it’s own. They include a study on 6-Gingerol and it’s use with Alzheimer’s Disease.
I’m smiling, Joe, because I just happened across your website today, and find you refreshingly open, unbiased, and fair. Science can be good, but having worked at a major hospital/research facility, there are factors that one has to consider when assessing scientific studies, one of which is politics and money.
With that said, it’s just my nature to put less weight on the science and more on the testimonials of actual people who have used it (assuming they are TRUE testimonials, not false ones you often see in Amazon reviews, for example) You can often tell.
About Protandim, I haven’t used it, nor do I know anyone who has, yet anyone considering it owes it to themselves to research the testimonials on youtube. The best actors in the world cannot fake the heartfelt sincerity of many of them, but each person needs to judge that for themselves.
robinbarr, thanks for the kind words and I’m glad you have been enjoying my website. I do agree funding of studies can play a role the outcomes of some research. I do try to point that out when possible. While I like to see studies funded by companies, I feel that that those companies should not play a role in the outcomes. Some journals now do disclose potential conflicts of interest of the researchers. That I feel can be a big help to us looking at the research.
Robinbarr said: “About Protandim, I haven’t used it, nor do I know anyone who has, yet anyone considering it owes it to themselves to research the testimonials on youtube. The best actors in the world cannot fake the heartfelt sincerity of many of them, but each person needs to judge that for themselves.”
That’s just about the worst advice you could have possibly given. Every last one of the testimonials on Protandim I’ve seen are bloody ridiculous. Not one of them is even remotely credible. I pity anyone who can’t see that for themselves. Not only are the videos idiotic and completely unbelievable on their surface, the people (i.e., Protandim distributors) who appear in them are purposely breaking the law, and in so doing, stretching the limits of credibility far beyond the breaking point. Rather than praising these disgusting acts of illegal and parasitic marketing, you should be condemning them loudly.
Joe,
I read your information on several areas in your field and that is why I was not surprised that you ventured into the field of supplements. Your article leaves me with the impression that you are not supporting the protandim claims or studies. That is why I reviewed your bio and you state your educational background is a MS degree in Exercise Science and a BS degree in Chemistry and Biology.
But nothing in pharmacology, cell biology, etc. I am sure you took a cell bio class.
The reason I looked was your distractors such as lack of human subjects, one Doctor charging a fee etc. Human research requires a lot of legal protocols and are very expensive to conduct. Most research is performed on animals and “test-tube” as you noted with protandim. The legal ramifications are enormous, and the folks performing the test have to be certified for human subjects by taking mandated courses and the subjects have a lot of screening and legal issues to become involved.
The Human tests have been minimal and you point out that the latest one was a failure for protandim. This was, “Protandim does not influence alveolar epithelial permeability or intrapulmonary oxidative stress in human subjects with alcohol use disorders”.
Ok, so it does not help with people who abuse their bodies with alcohol and have pneumonia. My experience has taught me, alcoholics are not reliable patients for get test subjects. Oh, Yes I am a physician.
Nrf2 activators and antioxidants are being studied around the world as additional therapies for numerous ailments. I do not know of anyone studying Nrf2 as sole treatments.
Vogal,
I have a proposition for you, as of today, they are still looking for volunteers for the double blind placebo controlled study for the effectiveness of parachutes vs no parachutes.
Your comments are false and misleading.
“Rather than praising these disgusting acts of illegal and parasitic marketing, you should be condemning them loudly.”
Protandim is a supplement, not a drug and thereby not regulated by the FDA (which is a political administration not scientific, just look at Vioxx).
Apparently you make a lot of money blogging about different supplements and companies.
You have way too much time on your hands.
Lisarob,
You stated in you long winded retort, “You claimed: “Some people with chronic illnesses report that it has taken several months before they saw real improvement.” It doesn’t matter if you named the people or the chronic diseases specifically, you said that Protandim improved the condition of people with chronic illnesses”.
That is not illegal. “Real improvement” is not stating Protandim is treatment for any conditions. It is a vague statement. You are the one adding the treatment of a condition in you mind.
I bet you eat the whole grain cereals. The advertisement that states, “People who eat whole grain cereals tend to be healthier” is making the same type of statement and it is on television.
OK folks have fund trying to rip this rebuttal, without name calling. You loose all respect with the name calling. It shows your argument is weak.
Doc D, thanks for writing. Yes I have taken cell biology and several other “olgy” classes. I don’t think I need to be a pharmacologist to understand the research done to date – mostly test tube and lab animal research. As for the study on alcoholics, while I did include it in my review – because it is a study- I usually discount it because I don’t feel its relevant to how protandim is marketed. As for research, I’ve said many times that I would accept graduate level human-based research as proof of the effectiveness of protandim. It would not be enormously expensive to what I would propose.
Doc D
You know what makes your argument weak? Your argument.
Are you seriously saying that since double blind placebo controlled studies are not needed to determine the benefits of using a parachute, the same applies to supplements or drugs?
You are a physician? Is some village missing a witch doctor right now? Please let us know which medical school lets people with such poor reasoning skills graduate and practice medicine.
As for my “long winded comment,” you need to look up the difference between disease claims and structure/function claims as they apply to supplements. There is a difference between supporting health and claiming “real improvement” in people with “chronic illnesses.” These claims are most definitely regulated by the FTC and FDA.
At the risk of being long winded, I will once again paste a paragraph from LifeVantage’s policy about the matter:
“no Independent Distributor may make any claim that LifeVantage products are useful in the cure, treatment, diagnosis, mitigation or prevention of any diseases or signs or symptoms of disease. Not only are such claims violations of LifeVantage policies, but they potentially violate federal and state laws and regulations, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
and Federal Trade Commission Act”
Claiming “real improvement” is the same as saying “useful in the cure.”
Thanks Doc C. I would have said the same thing. FDA has a different agenda when it comes to supplements. If a supplement shows improvement to certain ppl who have health issues than it’s a good sign.
I doubt Robinbarr will read the following information on why we should not trust anecdotal evidence, but here it is for anyone interested:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-role-of-anecdotes-in-science-based-medicine/
Lisarob,
“I doubt Robinbarr will read the following information on why we should not trust anecdotal evidence, but here it is for anyone interested:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-role-of-anecdotes-in-science-based-medicine”
I read the website and it is somewhat factual and opinion.
But what you did show was why global warming is a fraud. It is based on computer models which is derived from ANECDOTAL evidence.
As I indicated to Vogal,
They are still looking for volunteers for the double blind placebo controlled study for the effectiveness of parachutes vs no parachutes.
Parachutes have never been tested “scientifically” with human subjects.
A lot of anecdotal evidence.
hmmm
For starters, I’m not a doctor and I don’t play one on TV, However!!! I do have Emphysema and I don’t sell Protandim. I have a friend who’s so desperate to make money he keeps jumping from one thing to another and tries to drag me in on his latest idea. I always hide and unplug my telephone.
Well about three weeks ago he asked me to stop by his place he wanted me to see something. When I got there, he put on the TV and offered me a cup of coffee. I knew right then it was time to leave. It was the Life Vantage video. After sitting through it and trying to get out the door, I told him I would buy a bottle if he would just leave me alone. I’ll even buy two so my wife can try it as well, just stop trying to use me for his business ventures.
Anyway, after taking Protandim for a few days I noticed a big difference in my breathing. Especially after waking up each morning. I still have a cough from all the years of smoking but the pain was gone. Also, I was suffering from an outbreak of the herpes virus and those usually take two to three weeks to heal. It healed completely in less than a week while taking the Protandim. This stuff is working.
Martin, this is great! I want to warn you that you will be accused by others who regularly post on this blog of either lying about your improved health, or of just experiencing psychosomatic improvement, or of being a stealth LV distributor.
Greg, while this has happened in the past, (people posting fake testimonials) I googled his email and nothing showed up that made me believe he was a protandim distributor. I believe he is sincere.
I’m sure Martin is sincere, but there are those who have posted on your blog in the past who so hate Protandim and Lifevantage that they knee-jerkingly think the worst of anyone who says anything positive about either the products or the company. I am just sending Martin a heads-up.
Wow Joe, nearly 1900 comments on this one article! Just remember, when it comes to research, never let the truth get in the way of your marketing campaign. Whether or not Protandim works is irrelevant. As long as you can scheister people into believing it works by lifting your “evidence” out of context, then all the better. Laugh your way to the bank!
Pyroluria is another mythical condition which has also been debunked since the 1970s but still continues to endure since there is money to be made off of it. Alt practitioners say it exists and even have a test for it for which they can conveniently prescribe supplements to “cure” it. Very sad. Check it out on my site at: http://www.drbillsukala.com.au/nutrition/pyroluria-disease-myth/ Might be one for you to write up. I’ve had a couple people tell me they had this diabolical condition!
Bill, that’s interesting. I’ve never heard of that condition before.
Dr Sukala, are you saying that oxidative stress is a mythical condition? If so, why are there over 140,000 published studies/papers/reviews on it on pubmed.gov?
Dear Greg,
Thank you for taking time out of your busy day to respond to my comment. I’ve taken a lot of biochemistry classes when I was at university and I can absolutely confirm that oxidative stress exists, as further evidenced by the 140,000 published papers that you cite.
The mere fact that peer-reviewed studies exist on this does not support the contention that oxidative stress is the sole cause of illness. In fact, I could tell you with reasonable confidence that the majority of those 140,000 studies have nothing to do with Protandim or its marketing objectives. But as is the case with most MLM companies, never let the truth get in the way of a marketing and profits.
Kind regards
Bill
No one is contending that oxidative stress is the sole cause of illness; what we say is that the research has shown that it is a major contributing factor in the development of many chronic and degenerative diseases, and so it is logical to think that lowering OS may well delay the onset of such diseases, and possibly reduce their severity in those who already suffer from them. We can not say for sure that such would be the case, because until Protandim, there was no way to significantly reduce OS to conduct studies.
No one is saying that all 140,000+ studies are about Protandim itself; we just refer to them to show people that OS is a real and serious problem they need to deal with. Many people have never heard of it, so what LV is having to do is basically create a market for its products. Do you deny that OS is a serious problem? What are you doing about your OS problem? Do you know of a better product than Protandim for reducing OS?
I was just approached about selling this product. So I wanted to do some research first and I came across this thread. I’ve spent way too much time on it, but I was impressed to express my impressions on this. After reading up on this, the company/distributors, make some pretty substantial claims. I don’t know if this product does or doesn’t do what is claimed. By nature I am a skeptic. That being said, I would like Dan, who said,
“Most people who hate on LifeVantage are personally against MLM. There are currently doctors coming on board to share this, even a cardiologist at the Tommy Lasorda Heart Institute. This is still new and many are catching on. I don’t like it when something good is out there and helping people and someone wants to put it down and yet, won’t try it out for themselves.
Many universities around the country and world are spending their dimes on studying Protandim with diseases! Why would they do this if the science before it wasn’t worth wile? Why are they going on year 7 or 8 at the University of Minnesota to see how it helps with diabetes if it wasn’t working?”
1. Name some of the doctors who are currently on board, even the cardiologist.
2. Name the Universities/researchers who are studying the product with diseases on their dime.
3. Who are the researchers at the University of Minnesota working on this?
I am not pointing fingers at anyone. I just want someone on the companies side to back up what they are saying. Anyone can say that doctors love this product or that studies are being done to prove something. Then do it.
It just seems to me that most the people that are for the product are saying what the company tells them and they just believe them. Sometimes you need to ask for the back up and proof. Like I said, I am just trying to investigate this, so just post the info I requested so I can validate it myself. I don’t need someone or some company to tell me that they already did and I should believe them.
Yes, who are the researchers at UMN …..I asked this and didn’t hear a peep back from Dan.
I found this statement (back in 2011) in a correspondence from Mark Gordon:
From: Mark Gordon Subject: Re: Product Date: August 1, 2011 9:57:50 PM CDT xxxx,
“………. Have her call Dr. David Keller, the director of diabetes research at the University of Minnesota and have him tell her that his studies show Protandim protects pancreatic islet cells from rejection when transplanted in diabetics through reduction of oxidative stress by NRF2 activation………… Do you think these organizations would put their reputations on the line if they didn’t really think there was really something to Protandim? Do you really think these organizations would spend their own, hard to come by, research money on Protandim if they thought it was snake oil? I truly believe that if your sister objectively looks at the studies herself, she will come to the same conclusion that I have. Mark Gordon”
Back in 2011, I couldn’t find a Dr. David Keller associated with UMN, either on staff, or in the alumni database. I contacted Dr. Elizabeth Seaquist at UMN and she replied:
“There is no one by that name (Dr. David Keller) associated with diabetes research at the University of Minnesota.”
After Dan’s recent post, I contacted the Schulze Diabetes Institute at UMN again to ask if Protandim was being studied in relation to pancreatic islet cells, as Gordon claims in his letter. The contact person, Jayne Pederson was unaware of any research involving Protandim and islet cell transplants.
So again, Dan, who is doing research at UMN involving Protandim? Both Myhill (see my previous post about this) and Gordon seem to have made up researchers at UMN. Still waiting to hear who is doing 8 years worth of research on Protandim there…..it must be super top secret…..
Lisarob,
If I ever need to put together a team, you would be an awesome addition to it.
I feel sorry for LifeVantage distributors who are really sincere in their beliefs, just their beliefs are based on b.s. from higher ups who are in it for the money and not taking responsibility. Unfortunately, shooting the messenger is not getting to the source. Meanwhile, the source is slippery.
Anecdotally, Protandim did wonders for me in the very beginning – pain in hand went away, more energy, less brain fog, cloudiness over eyes in morning gone. My body was lacking, and it provided. 3 years later, my eyes are still clear in the morning, though I am getting hand pain again. My energy is good, brain is good, which may or may not be because of life changes, vitamin B12 and/or vitamin D supplements. Hard to say, though I will soon know if Protandim is still helping since I will stop taking Protandim.
I believe we all need supplements, especially as we get older. I will be trying some other supplements as well as limiting my addiction to Twix candy bars, Coca Cola and Cheetos.
Best of wishes to all of us, mahalo for your insights,
Aunty
Good to hear some positive notes. I know Protandim does work to a certain degree with some ppl. What needs to be considered is the high degree of free radicals that needs to be tackled every second of our lives.
Atomic said: “Good to hear some positive notes. I know Protandim does work to a certain degree with some ppl. What needs to be considered is the high degree of free radicals that needs to be tackled every second of our lives.”
Why is it good to hear “positive notes”?Anonymous testimonials carry no weight and distributors who make them are violating U.S. law.
Define “work”, “a certain degree”, and “some people”? Your vagueness is a red flag. What exactly did Protandim do and to what degree exactly did Protandim do “it”. Who are these people you speak of, and does the company stand behind these claims? We all know that you can’t or won’t come up with reasonable answers.
Free radicals aren’t even relevant to the discussion. The latest clinical trial on Protandim proved that it did nothing.
I’m not a distributor for LifeVantage but I can take a stab at some of the answers.
“1. Name some of the doctors who are currently on board, even the cardiologist.”
The few that they have are all hacks and/or aged dinosaurs, and all have a financial conflict interest.
The cardiologist they talk about is Mark Gordon. Other MDs include guys like Norman G. Marvin, a hack if ever there was one. Beyond that, the list gets pretty thin. The distributors don’t often mention these people by name because ultimately it’s a source of embarrassment, so they prefer to be generic when making such claims.
“2. Name the Universities/researchers who are studying the product with diseases on their dime.”
There aren’t any; at least none that can be proven. In LifeVantage’s entire history, not one university/researcher has ever ever claimed” that they are studying the product on their own dime.
“3. Who are the researchers at the University of Minnesota working on this?”
They don’t exist.
Don’t expect any distributors to refute my comments above. They can’t and they know it.
Too many people want proof. Simply take it and find out if it works. Don’t see anything, move on. FDA doesn’t test some of its drugs before putting in the market.
Atomic said: “Too many people want proof. Simply take it and find out if it works. Don’t see anything, move on. FDA doesn’t test some of its drugs before putting in the market.”
Oh brother! How can say so many silly things in a mere 3 sentences? There is no issue of too many people wanting proof. Quite simply, LifeVantage bears the burden of proof according to U.S. law (under the jurisdiction of the FDA and FTC).
Secondly, the “just try it and see if it works” argument is one of the worst you could have possibly made. One cannot possibly try every product on the market, so wise consumers choose products that have a reputation for integrity, are high-quality and high-value, and do what they are advertised to do. LifeVantage had a reputation of extreme dishonesty. Their product is low quality (i.e., the metal contamination recall fiasco); it is a terrible value (mundane ingredients, the price of which is marked up excessively to sustain q pyramid scheme); and it does not do what is advertised to do – i.e., not only does Protandim not mitigate diseases, it doesn’t even lower oxidative stress in humans, as indicated by the most recent clinical trial, which proved that it did nothing.
As for the FDA, what argument are you trying to make? The FDA holds pharmaceuticals to an extremely high burden of proof; supplements like Protandim, none whatsoever. Protandim does not prevent, treat, cure, or mitigate the symptoms of any disease. It doesn’t even lower oxidative stress. It’s worthless garbage, and the company that has been deceptively foisting it on the world is now swirling down the drain.
With all that nonsense that Lifevantage is demonstrating, why have we not seen the FTC willing to shut it down like yesterday, Mr Know It All?
I have been tracking Vogel and his brother Lazyman since day one and I notice that they have been very critical about the product. Seems like they want as many people as they can to not be fooled by the deception put out by Lifevantage.
Clearly this is a product that you will have to see whether or not it works. If you notice a positive difference than share it. I don’t know what it is with this “political correctness”. Make your statement and let others find out for themselves. If your conclusion says it doesn’t work than find something else. Don’t go nuts telling people it doesn’t work. After all, scientific research on this product or any other doesn’t guarantee you will use it.
Doctors prescribe drugs (many with side effects and some are not approved) every day and where do I find Vogel and Lazyman making negative comments about them? And even if they did, has anyone told their doctor not to prescribe anything. On the other hand, there are tons of supplements to choose from and are easily found in stores, and most are not too concerned whether or not 500mg or 700mg or 900mg is too dangerous. Or whether or not it helps reduce some health problems.
If we believe that free radicals is the underlying problems to many of our illnesses aside from idiopathy then use whatever works. If you make money out of it, great. If you care less then step aside.
Make it easier for yourself. If you find Protandim useless, recommend to everyone an alternative. If following a healthy lifestyle is what you’re going to say then let’s accept the fact that most are simply lazy and will not change, and the market is capitalizing on that very issue.
So Mr Atomic,
Let me wrap my pea brain around this- if you find that it works, then share it, if not then say nothing…?
So Vogel and Lazyman should let the distributors get away with lies when they can prove otherwise?
So unless Vogel and Lazyman are criticizing big Pharma here, on a PROTANDIM blog, then there’s somehow what? A conflict? No truth to what they write?
Political correctness? To quote the urban dictionary, it’s “a way we speak in America so as not to offend whining $ussies”. It seems you are the only one whining about the truth being told. You are whining about “other supplements” not being concerned about proper dosage? Take it up on the appropriate blog, this isn’t it.
In the spirit of political correctness, I truly apologize if you are a 12 yr old.
Atomic said: “I have been tracking Vogel and his brother Lazyman since day one and I notice that they have been very critical about the product. Seems like they want as many people as they can to not be fooled by the deception put out by Lifevantage.”
I take it you’re speaking figuratively when you refer to LazyMan as my “brother”. We share a common interest in debunking Protandim. But why resort to innuendo that implies anything more than that? Do you consider SupplementGeek my brother too?
If you’ve been “following” Lazyman and I since “day 1” (whatever that is supposed to be), then you’d know that what we have revealed goes far beyond merely being “critical”. We have presented reams of evidence proving unequivocally that the company and its agents have routinely been scandalously dishonest, and that the product is essentially worthless and has been misrepresented to the public a hundred times over.
Atomic said: “Clearly this is a product that you will have to see whether or not it works. If you notice a positive difference than share it.”
That’s really idiotic. When there is overwhelming evidence against trying the product, the conclusion shouldn’t be that one needs to try it to see whether it works; it should be to run away as far and as fast as possible.
I also couldn’t help noticing that you didn’t define what “works” and “positive difference” means. What you’re really doing is trying sucker people in by being purposely vague. What if I take Protandim and have a good day tomorrow; does that means Protandim was the cause? Your underlying message is really about Protandim curing diseases though isn’t it? You just don’t have enough backbone to be specific. And what happens if I take Protandim and it makes me sick? Will you be there to take responsibility, Mr. Random Anonymous Voice on the Internet?
Atomic said: “I don’t know what it is with this “political correctness”.
It’s called “U.S. Law” not “political correctness”, fool.
Atomic said: “Doctors prescribe drugs (many with side effects and some are not approved) every day and where do I find Vogel and Lazyman making negative comments about them?”
Let’s be clear — drugs are effective for the treatment of diseases; your product is not. You certainly won’t find me commenting about drugs on a Protandim blog. That you couldn’t figure this out on your own suggests that you’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Atomic said: “If we believe that free radicals is the underlying problems to many of our illnesses aside from idiopathy then use whatever works.”
It’s not an issue of belief. Protandim doesn’t have any effect on any illnesses; it doesn’t even have any effect on free radicals. You said you’d been following me since “day 1”. If that were true, then would have already seen the evidence of Protandim’s inefficacy; and yet here you are pretending that it doesn’t exist. So obviously you’re not just simple; you’re also dishonest.
Atomic said: “If you make money out of it, great. If you care less then step aside.”
So it’s “great” if someone makes money by dishonestly selling pyramid schemes and worthless snakeoil? OK, so you’re simple, dishonest, and immoral. And who are you telling to step aside sonny boy? I’m certainly not going anywhere.
Atomic said: “Make it easier for yourself. If you find Protandim useless, recommend to everyone an alternative.”
Protandim is unequivocally useless. My recommendation for an alternative to buying Protandim is to not buy Protandim. No need to thank me for saving you hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year.
Atomic said: “If following a healthy lifestyle is what you’re going to say then let’s accept the fact that most are simply lazy and will not change, and the market is capitalizing on that very issue.”
Protandim is not a substitute for a healthy lifestyle. You simply try to capitalize on people’s laziness by selling them worthless crap and conning them into a pyramid scheme.
Does Protandim work for what they claim? Well I don’t know I am just a regular Jo Schmo BUT Plantar Fasciitis in a pain and I am unable to run. I have pretty much tried everything. Roller ball, different shoes, stretches, not running, surgery (yea right), ankle brace um um um….trying Protandim to see if it works and maybe I can run again. Why not? I have nothing to lose.
Oh yes, I COULD buy the 5 herbal supplements that make up what is in Protandim, but I only want to take one pill rather than rummaging through 5 different bottles before work and run the risk of being late.
On day 3 and I will try running again on day 30. If it does work and I can run again WITHOUT pain the next day, I will be convinced and it wouldn’t be worthless to me. I wouldn’t have known about this supplement if I hadn’t heard about Protandim through LV. Would I have discovered the 5 secret herbs to take together if not? Probably no. Would a Dr. of the foot have told me about these 5 natural herbs? Doubt it.
Just my 2 cents and I’ll put my helmet on for any bashing. 🙂
Kehami said: “Does Protandim work for what they claim?”
Kind of a vague question don’t you think? Define “work”. Who is “they”. What claims are you referring to? It certainly doesn’t cure bloody cancer, as some of the Protandim whores are claiming. It doesn’t even lower oxidative stress, as indicated by the most recent clinical trial.
Kehami said: “Well I don’t know I am just a regular Jo Schmo BUT Plantar Fasciitis in a pain and I am unable to run… trying Protandim to see if it works and maybe I can run again. Why not? I have nothing to lose.”
Why not??? The better question is why? There’s no reason whatsoever to think that Protandim could relieve pain from plantar fasciitis. What you have to lose is money, and a bit of dignity, since your purchase will help to support an exploitative dishonest pyramid scheme
Kehami said: “Oh yes, I COULD buy the 5 herbal supplements that make up what is in Protandim, but I only want to take one pill rather than rummaging through 5 different bottles before work and run the risk of being late.”
That’s kind of a ridiculous scenario don’t you think? It would take you less than 5 minutes to make a year’s supply of the exact same mix and you’d save hundreds of dollars. That notwithstanding, there’s no reason to favor Protandim’s particular mix over any other, so if you’re really game to try a random scattershot herbal approach to treating your fasciitis, why not just rummage through your spice cabinet and pick any 5 ingredients at random?.
Kehami said: “On day 3 and I will try running again on day 30. If it does work and I can run again WITHOUT pain the next day, I will be convinced and it wouldn’t be worthless to me.”
The point of a public discussion forum like this isn’t for you to convince yourself; it’s for you to convince other people. If you come back in 30 days and say Protandim performed a miracle, people who are savvy will simply call BS, and rightly so. You understand why right? You’re anonymous: we have no way of knowing whether you ever even had fasciitis or that you took Protandim or, if you did, that it did anything. What makes for a convincing argument here are verifiable facts. There isn’t even a plausible reason why you’d try Protandim as a pain reliever; in fact, your entire story is so far-fetched that the simplest explanation would be that you’re a Protandim distributor (who neglected to admit it, as required) and a liar, using pretty much a carbon copy of the same deceptive BS that hundreds of other dishonest Protandim distributors have used. Occam’s razor my friend!
Kehami said: “I wouldn’t have known about this supplement if I hadn’t heard about Protandim through LV. Would I have discovered the 5 secret herbs to take together if not? Probably no. Would a Dr. of the foot have told me about these 5 natural herbs? Doubt it.”
And who at LifeVantage told you to try Protandim to relieve plantar fasciitis pain? What kind of isolated backwater would one have to live in to think that tea and cumin are a secret? They sell green tea at Starbucks for crying out loud, and there are two of their stores within a block of my house.
A foot doctor might tell you about Protandim if they was one of the disreputable con artists working for LifeVantage and misrepresenting the product. An honest and educated doctor with a reputation to protect certainly wouldn’t because they have integrity, common sense, respect for their oath, and too much to lose to risk fleeing people with disreputable pyramid scheme snakeoil supplements.
Kehami said: “Just my 2 cents and I’ll put my helmet on for any bashing. :)”
You’ll need more than that – a titanium unitard with an asbestos codpiece at minimum.
Oh Vogel. Not a vague question, just using the title of this article. Your reference to “They” ? No one has to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out. I am not favoring Protandim I am simply trying it out. Just like I try on those pair of shoes before I’m sold on them.
Nobody at LV told me that it would help my foot issue and I am not a distributor, just a girl that wants to get rid of the inflammation in my foot and to walk without a limp. Nobody told me that Vitamin C will get rid of certain things either, but I still take it.
Do you by chance “sell” those titanium unitard with the asbestos codpiece option and would it work?
Kehami-
Since you’ve disclosed that you’re a girl, you hopefully won’t need the codpiece. 🙂
Phil! That’s great to hear. Always learning something new.
It is great that you are giving Protandim a try, but keep in mind that whether or not it helps with your Plantar Fasciitis pain, your oxidative stress level will have been significantly reduced, and that will be good for your overall health. Also note that it may take longer than 30 days for Protandim to really affect your condition. Some people with chronic illnesses report that it has taken several months before they saw real improvement. I hope Protandim works well for you!
Greg B
Greg, we can always count on you to chime in with illegal claims. Well done, as usual.
I’ve made no illegal claims here. You need reading lessons.
Greg says:
“It is great that you are giving Protandim a try, but keep in mind that whether or not it helps with your Plantar Fasciitis pain, your oxidative stress level will have been significantly reduced, and that will be good for your overall health. Also note that it may take longer than 30 days for Protandim to really affect your condition. Some people with chronic illnesses report that it has taken several months before they saw real improvement.”
Greg, pretty much everything you said is an illegal claim according to the FTC. I have copied some of the relevant information for you, but you really should read through the whole document. I’ve posted this before, but as usual, you ignored it:
http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/dietary-supplements-advertising-guide-industry
“A. Identifying Claims and Interpreting Ad Meaning
1. Identifying Express and Implied Claims”
“The first step in evaluating the truthfulness and accuracy of advertising is to identify all express and implied claims an ad conveys to consumers. Advertisers must make sure that whatever they say expressly in an ad is accurate. Often, however, an ad conveys other claims beyond those expressly stated. Under FTC law, an advertiser is equally responsible for the accuracy of claims suggested or implied by the ad. Advertisers cannot suggest claims that they could not make directly.”
“Depending on how it is phrased, or the context in which it is presented, a statement about a product’s effect on a normal “structure or function” of the body may also convey to consumers an implied claim that the product is beneficial for the treatment of a disease. If elements of the ad imply that the product also provides a disease benefit, the advertiser must be able to substantiate the implied disease claim even if the ad contains no express reference to disease”
“1. Claims Based on Consumer Experiences or Expert Endorsements
An overall principle is that advertisers should not make claims either through consumer or expert endorsements that would be deceptive or could not be substantiated if made directly.9 It is not enough that a testimonial represents the honest opinion of the endorser. Under FTC law, advertisers must also have appropriate scientific evidence to back up the underlying claim.”
Greg, you should go to the link and read where it discusses in length about what it takes to substantiate a claim, and what constitutes “appropriate scientific evidence”. Lifevantage fails spectacularly on all counts, even the most basic claim that it lowers oxidative stress in humans. This is not my opinion, it is fact. Seriously, read the requirements; the testing done on Protandim doesn’t meet any of the standards. Just because the FTC hasn’t called them on it yet doesn’t mean it is not an illegal claim.
In your statement you are claiming, or at the very least implying, that Protandim will improve chronic conditions if you just take it long enough. That is an illegal claim, and is even against Lifevantage policies. They really don’t want distributors to follow the policy, so I’m sure you are safe from being kicked out of the cult, er, company. If LV didn’t have distributors out there making all kinds of unsubstantiated claims, they know that no one would be buying their curry pill.
This is from LV’s document:
http://info.lifevantage.com/pdf/en/ToSayOrNotToSay.pdf
“Product Claims
Section 8.10 of the Policies and Procedures addresses “Unauthorized Claims and
Actions” of Independent Distributors. Specifically, Section 8.10.2 outlines what
“Product Claims” an Independent Distributor cannot make. It states:
“No claims, which include personal testimonials, as to therapeutic, curative or beneficial properties of any products offered by LifeVantage may be made except those contained in official LifeVantage materials. In particular, no Independent Distributor may make any claim that LifeVantage products are useful in the cure, treatment, diagnosis, mitigation or prevention of any diseases or signs or symptoms of disease. Not only are such claims violations of LifeVantage policies, but they potentially violate federal and state laws and regulations, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
and Federal Trade Commission Act”
In case you haven’t noticed, a post on a blog is not an advertisement. Also, I never said that Protandim would cure anything. All I did was suggest, to someone who is already taking the product, and from whom I derive no financial benefit, that she give the product a longer trial than 30 days before deciding whether or not it was helping her with her condition, because a number of other people, whom I did not name, have reported that Protandim did not seem to help their conditions, which I also did not name, until they took it for a few months or more.
What Kehami does with this suggestion is entirely her own choice. No sane person would interpret what I said as deceptive or manipulative in any way. As far as the claim that Protandim lowers oxidative stress, the scientific evidence that it does so is solid, and we distributors have been told by LV’s compliance department that we can make that claim. OS is not a disease, so saying Protandim lowers it is not making a disease treatment/cure claim.
Greg B
Greg, it doesn’t matter if it is an ad or not, your own compliance policy makes it clear in their “To Say or Not to Say”. It isn’t titled “To Put in an Ad or Not to Put in an Ad.” What part of the following statement do you not understand?
“no Independent Distributor may make any claim that LifeVantage products are useful in the cure, treatment, diagnosis, mitigation or prevention of any diseases or signs or symptoms of disease. Not only are such claims violations of LifeVantage policies, but they potentially violate federal and state laws and regulations, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
and Federal Trade Commission Act”
You claimed: “Some people with chronic illnesses report that it has taken several months before they saw real improvement.” It doesn’t matter if you named the people or the chronic diseases specifically, you said that Protandim improved the condition of people with chronic illnesses.
Now, re-read the paragraph above from LV Compliance until you understand it. As a distributor, everything you say or write is in effect, an advertisement and is to comply with the regulations.
Yes, I realize that LV allows you to make the claim that Protandim reduces oxidative stress, despite the fact that the scientific evidence for that claim does not even come close to meeting the standards set by the FTC guidelines. Unfortunately, the FTC doesn’t have the funding or manpower to shut down every slimy little company like this for not complying with the law. Judging by the direction the company has been heading (down the toilet), the FTC won’t need to act anyway, these schemes have a pretty short life.
Well said Lisa. Greg surely knows that he’s wrong, but still, it’s important to go through the exercise of debunking his BS. He’s trying to play cat and mouse — and he’s the mouse.
Yes they can shut down Lifevantage but it will not happen..
If you’re using protandim and it doesn’t give you any result after a month or two or three, try something else. FDA wants everyone to rely on drugs e.g. diabetic even though we know some are not approved before hand, and some are too dangerous.
We also know that a lot of supplements are tainted and cannot be relied on. We know that tons of companies are capitalizing on the word “antioxidants” and wants you, the consumer, to buy everything that has that word. If you’re a distributor try not to say it cures because you may get hammered sooner or later.
KehamiO3,
I’d probably suggest seeing someone who does myofascial release (an OT, PT, or MT) for your plantar fasciitis, or a Rolfer before sinking any money into the questionable product being discussed.
I am not writing this to personally attack anyone, or be combative. So, if your intent is to rebuke….don’t bother reading. I am offering an objective view regarding what I have encountered in this thread.
I was recently approached by someone wanting me to become a distributor, and start experiencing all of the wonder that is Protandim. I have quite an extensive sales background, so I am constantly approached with these MLM type opportunities. Let me say there are a million of them, and they all have one thing in common….If you are one of the first to the table, you get the most to eat.
That said, I never get involved with these marketing groups. This is largely due to the fact that I will not sell anything which I don’t wholeheartedly believe in. I always do my research ahead of time, and always find the same thing. More people are hurt putting their faith in these products, than are saved or enriched by doing so. From penny stocks to supplements to cleaning agents to life insurance, all the same principal….If you are either a) without moral conscience or b) dumb enough to believe blindly, you can make money from others’ misfortune and/or gullibility. It’s really disheartening to think how many lose their life savings falling prey to this.
But….I digress. I have only one thing to say about this entire thread. Those who are in opposition to Protandim/LifeVantage (i.e. Vogel,Lisa) seem to consistently refer to recorded fact, while those that are on the LifeVantage wagon seem to resort to the regurgitating the same marketing based statements and claims that “the opposition is just hating”. If one actually were to review the thread in it’s entirety, the similarities are astounding.
To that end….I ask this….assume I really want to believe in Protandim….can you offer any PROOF that it is actually beneficial (to the extent it claims), or any facts that disprove what the AntiTandim camp has provided?
I know if I had made millions of dollars on this product, and it actually worked as described, I’d make billions proving it. I have already reviewed all of the “studies” referenced in the conversation, so please don’t site them as proof.
Rip, I am curious as to why you think the case made by couch critic bloggers, some of whom are anonymous, and none of whom hold either MD or PhD degrees in medical science, is of more value than the peer-reviewed, published studies conducted by reputable scientists, and the growing number of real scientists and medical professionals who are both using Protandim themselves, and recommending it to their patients and clients?
As an analogy, if you were wondering if you ought to buy a new deer rifle, would you listen to real, experienced hunters who had used the rifle in the field and reported how well it worked, or would you go with the opinion of some fellow whose experience in hunting consisted in just watching a few anti-hunting videos?
Hello Greg,
I am not putting any stock in the “couch critic bloggers” themselves, but rather the facts they have supplied. For all I know they could be disgruntled employees. On the flip side, the letters behind one’s name don’t mean all that much to me. There is a vast difference between education and intelligence. You cannot argue the fact that there are many people in the medical, and scientific fields, that are really nothing more than practiced academics. More than that, at the end of the day, this is still just the “opinion” of those MDs/PhDs.
The difference is that the opposition is not offering opinions, as much as verifiable facts. I really have yet to see that from Protandim side. The one study that really stands out to me, is the one where the participants given placebo showed better results than those given Protandim. This is one of the only 2 human studies in existence, and it doesn’t speak well for Protandim.
That also begs the question….Is it possible that the positive effects of this product have really been nothing more than the miraculous workings of the human body/brain, as a result of believing strongly enough that you have been given a wonder-drug?
Tell me something Greg. If you were the proprietor of this product, and it really does work as described, would you not spend the money to conduct legitimate trials? Would the $50K or $100K or even $1 million cost of studies not pale in comparison to the revenue you would stand to generate? Would you not stand to recoup your investment in no time? Money aside, wouldn’t you not just do it to shut these naysayers up once and for all?
I have to tell you that if I was simply a distributor way up line, I would pay 6 figures myself and without hesitation.
As for the deer rifle, it would really depend on whether or not said hunters stood to profit from the sale. I don’t care who you are, you cannot offer a non-biased opinion when there is money in it for you. There are many professionally endorsed items that don’t work nearly as well for me as they do for the professional being paid to endorse them.
Now….were those hunters able to provide me with ballistic charts from independent 3rd party labs, and testimonials from independently conducted field trials, they may very well get my attention.
Rip and Greg – You both ask some good questions regarding Protandim and human research vs the couch critics. Let’s move this argument over to the one about the safety of vaccinations.
At one time the general public trusted vaccinations as being safe and effective. There even once was a human trial of the polio vaccine until it became obvious that the polio vaccine was so effective that it was unethical to continue allowing some children to not be protected.
Today vaccines are being highly questioned by many parents primarily due to unqualified couch critics wailing against the practice. It’s nearly to the point where it has become a public health issue. It seems to me that whether someone believes Protandim, or any other herbs, teas or potions help or hinder healing is just that: an opinion.
No matter how much scientific studying or human trials are done, if you are pre-disposed AGAINST vaccines, or any drug or procedure, then no amount of evidence is enough. The same applies to being FOR a remedy, where scant evidence is enough to be convincing and the placebo effect takes over… or maybe it’s not that and real healing has taken place.
It seems each person has their own credibility level that, once satisfied, is enough for them to make a decision, and while we all like to think we make logical decisions, ultimately it becomes an emotional decision and we all jump off the fence on one side or the other.
Hi Ron,
I think maybe you’re reaching a little bit with that comparison. The vaccines in question have undergone extensive trials (most anyway), before being released to the public. Also, being as most vaccines can be had at little or no cost, they aren’t really a profit center. I take that back, I’m sure they are actually a tremendous revenue generator. What I mean to say is….they aren’t an immediate expenditure to the end user.
That’s what makes Protandim so hard to swallow. It is an income source for most of the individuals testifying to its legitimacy, and a significant up-front cost to the consumer. I am not predisposed to disbelieve. On the contrary, I would like very much to know that something like Protandim is actually out there and working.
As much as I disapprove of MLM’s in general, because they have ALL eventually proven to be detrimental to the participant (with the exception of the select few that get in early), I am equally critical of pharmaceutical companies. Not to say that their products are ineffective, as many have been proven, but are they worth the cost? They are beyond the financial means for a number of those who really need them, and many times have horrible side effects. Yet, that doesn’t prevent pharmaceuticals form being one of the most profitable industries on the planet.
I would be thrilled to see an actual organic compound, as I’m sure it’s a very real possibility, that can treat many day-to-day illnesses. It would be a wonderful thing to have something that is effective for, and available to, everyone. I’m not saying Protandim isn’t just that. What I am saying is….why won’t anyone prove it? It’s very difficult to accept testimonials, from distributors who are profiting form the sale, as proof. When something is carrying a $50 price tag, and some very bold claims, it should come with some facts behind it. If it really does everything it’s supposed to, or really even half, then it shouldn’t be very difficult to compile some serious ammunition.
I’ll ask again….and I can’t stress this enough….if this stuff is really all that it (and it’s following) claims, why will no one spend the money to prove it? If this was YOUR product, and you had already made a killing off of it, would you not spend a few bucks to prove to the world that it really works? I know some would say “$50,000 or $100,000 is not a couple of bucks”, but it REALLY is compared to the potential gain.
As it stands….There is very little in the way of credible research, and most of what IS out there doesn’t shed a favorable light on Protandim. If research isn’t a possibility, why not free samples? I don’t mean the “sign up now and if you quit it within 90 days and send the product back we’ll refund you, but if you forget to cancel we will continue to charge your credit card” kind of free trial. Instead, a really actually “here take this for 2 months and if you see a benefit buy from me, if not I will never call you again” free trial. If Protandim really is as effective as the marketing claims, almost everyone would become a customer.
I have said that, were I a successful distributor, I would fund my own studies. Easier than that….I would just a give a bottle, and my business card, to EVERY person within arm’s reach EVERY day. Doesn’t that just make sense? It’s precisely that lack of “put up or shut up” which makes consumers leery of Protandim.
Just my penny and half. Or whatever it’s worth….
You all obviously know (I hope for your sake) that you are not accomplishing anything on this blog. If any distributor or Life Vantage, for that matter, actually spent millions of dollars and actually proved by scientifically accepted methods that Protandim actually heals some disease, or any company in the world produced ANY nutritional supplement that proved through years of research and millions of human studies to heal a disease,
Do you understand that they could not legally share that information? They would legally have to state on all their supplements that they are “not intended to treat, diagnose, cure, or alleviate the effects of diseases”. Our big brother the FDA says so.
Here is the link on the FDA site:
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm050803.htm
Here is another quote from that FDA site: “It is not legal to market a dietary supplement product as a treatment or cure for a specific disease, or to alleviate the symptoms of a disease”
So do you see? It does’t matter if we committed our lives to the almighty Vogal and produced every conceivable study and proof by his standards of a supplement (meaning not the chemicals he puts by faith into his body every time a ‘Dr’ tells him to because the pharmaceutical companies paid for the studies and makes all the billions from the sale of them) he would still throw his spin of hatred into your proof because it is worthless. We are regulated by the FDA and the FDA will NOT approve any study whatsoever on supplements. So if the FDA is your DADDY, the conclusion is, never take a supplement. You are only waisting your money and risking your health by faith in hearsay. Since only the FDA can say what heals and their say only applies to products that must be produced synthetically, with lab chemicals, give up on trying to spill your opinion. The saying is true: “If you try to convince someone against his will, he’ll still be of the same opinion still”.
Here is another FDA link:http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/QADietarySupplements/default.htm
The following is from that page and it clearly states that the FDA does not analyze supplements and as we saw previously, they do not allow statements of curing any disease.
The agency does not analyze dietary supplements before they are sold to consumers. The manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that the “Supplement Facts” label and ingredient list are accurate, that the dietary ingredients are safe, and that the content matches the amount declared on the label. FDA does not have resources to analyze dietary supplements sent to the agency by consumers who want to know their content. Instead, consumers may contact the manufacturer or a commercial laboratory for an analysis of the content.
So, it comes down to selling a supplement the said company may know it cures a disease and did the studies to prove it cures a disease but are not allow to tell anyone that it has cured any diseases. So why spend millions proving something you cannot reveal??? Just sell the product and make a lot of money and let the public speak for them with the results. Only those who take it will care and benefit. All others are just guinea pigs for the government pharmaceutical companies and feed them their billions.
Thank you very much!
Brian, I don’t think it would take millions of dollars. At least one of the protandim studies I’m aware of was a thesis done by a graduate student. It is not against the law to show/reveal the research that has been conducted on a supplement. Protandim distributors have already been doing this.
wow, Brian I don’t even know where to go on this one, except to say you are very very wrong.
Brian,
I’m not really sure where you’re going with this. The focus of your intent appears to be in defense of Protandim, yet in many instances you really (maybe unintentionally) make arguments for the Antitandim movement.
I think you are only further emphasizing Vogel’s point(s). What you are saying is that Protandim cannot legally claim to cure any disease, and that is precisely what Vogel has been saying from beginning of this blog. In fact, if you read his posts, he provided many of the same legislative references that you did (probably several times). His issue, if I’m not misreading, is that there are people doing just that.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I know I’m not asking anyone to profess that it is a cure for anything. I am simply asking someone to produce proof (i.e. credible research data, legitimate studies) that substantiates the claims ALREADY being made.
You are saying that no matter the expenditure, it would would be fruitless. Even if you had research that confirms these statements, you couldn’t tell anyone about it. While you cannot legally make statements regarding its ability to cure a disease (assuming that everyone has just misinterpreted the claims distributors and marketing strategies are making as we speak, and many times in this very blog), you are certainly well within your legal rights to reference published materials verifying it’s effective properties.
Joe is spot-on, in that it would not cost millions of dollars. Again…even if it did, so what? The marketing potential for a product that does what Protandim claims would be unheard of. A couple of million $’s would be nothing compared to the prospective revenue. Since we know it would be nowhere near that, it’s kind of a mute point all together.
If I misunderstood your post, please feel free to clarify.
Greg: “Rip, I am curious as to why you think the case made by couch critic bloggers, some of whom are anonymous, and none of whom hold either MD or PhD degrees in medical science, is of more value than the peer-reviewed, published studies conducted by reputable scientists, and the growing number of real scientists and medical professionals who are both using Protandim themselves, and recommending it to their patients and clients?”
Oh brother! Where to begin dissembling that inane argument? First of all, why does it matter if someone criticizes/blogs about Protandim from a couch? You threw that in as blanket means of denigrating this entire process. Would it be more compelling if they were being critical while sitting at a desk? Secondly if you don’t see any value in participating on a blog site where contributors (including you) are anonymous (and possibly sitting on the couch), then you shouldn’t be participating, but you do nonetheless; and you’re completely oblivious to your own hypocrisy.
The studies that you speak of exist solely for the purpose of disarming skepticism when people raise reasonable objections about the validity of Protandim and the claims made about it. That deceptive strategy works quite effectively on the typical rube distributor or prospective customer/recruit who lacks the wherewithal to critically analyze a scientific paper. People like you merely mention the name of the study or the university where it was conducted and then run away as though the research is unimpeachable simply because it exists and should never be questioned.
However, I have presented reams of incontrovertible facts that show how weak, flawed, and worthless this research is. It certainly doesn’t support any remarkable claims about the product. Everyone else but you seems to get it. Your failure to assimilate any of this information proves that you’re either extremely dishonest or simply the dullest knife in the drawer.
As for who here does or does not have an advanced degree in medical science, you have no way of knowing either way. Instead of recognizing that obvious limitation, you go out on a limb by claiming unequivocally as fact that no one here has an MD or PhD degree in medical science. In reality, you know nothing about me, and I’m not about to strut my degrees to establish my authority because it wouldn’t make my arguments any more compelling if I were to do so. The point here is that you look like a fool (or dishonest) when you pretend to know anything about the people who have been consistently eviscerating your lame self-serving arguments.
Lastly, who exactly are these “real scientists” and “medical professionals” who are allegedly using Protandim themselves? I hope you’re not referring to those huckster chiropractors that LifeVantage employs to help spread their BS to the world. And why would they recommend it to patients, as you allege, other than because of greed or straight up stupidity Protandim has never been shown to have ANY heath benefit in humans whatsoever – nada! It has no place in a conversation between doctors and patients, and if any doctor were flogging this to his/her patients, as you alleged, then they would be doing a disservice to their profession and should be dropped and reported to the AMA.
Greg said: “As an analogy, if you were wondering if you ought to buy a new deer rifle, would you listen to real, experienced hunters who had used the rifle in the field and reported how well it worked, or would you go with the opinion of some fellow whose experience in hunting consisted in just watching a few anti-hunting videos?”
Ah yes, fall back on a stupid analogy when all else fails right? If this analogy were applied to Protandim, we would have deer-rifle distributors selling cheap pyramid-scheme BB guns for $5000 each and claiming that they’re made of pure platinum and enable hunters to shoot with 100% accuracy and killing power at a 10-mile range.
I’m all for human studies, but there at least two issues that crop up when they involve plant-based studies. First, who’d going to pay for them, if once proven effective, if the company who spent the money has no viable way to recoup their costs of a human study…certainly a five-digit number. And finally, getting the plant-based extract normalized for repeatable results.
Public money has supported a lot of vitamin research, but usually on synthetic product. That’s done to have a highly repeatable result. A natural source is commonly not used because the variation from batch to batch of all the associated food factors (bioflavanoids) yields too much variation from study to study… and that includes an old well-studied vitamin, like vitamin C.
MDs and PhDs on both sides of the issue regarding the value of supplementation exist. I don’t see it going away, or either side surrendering their position. It’s the same with the safety of GMO food… strong opinions either side… and yet here’s something that’s underwent extensive animal trials… and moved to human consumption without human trials…
Good pts ronald
I am a user of Protandim, no longer a distributor. It’s funny to me that someone who talks so much about valid research will use Wikipedia as a reference? You lose credibility there yourself! Just saying!
Dan, So, you bypassed ALL the studies I covered on Protandim and picked out that one reference from Wikipedia that I listed for background info only. Can you tell anything wrong with the Wikipedia article?
I lose credibility? What about that cheesy cartoon of the doctor and patient on youtube, that distributors pass around?
For years pharmaceuticals spend billions of dollars on rats and test tubes before people. Why? The main reason is because they have synthetic, not natural products. These “drugs” need to be tested on people to see the side effects on humans, to make sure that they don’t kill anyone.
With a natural supplement like Protandim, it is not a chemical put together to enter our bodies. Therefore, a ton of human trials aren’t needed. People often state “Proof is in the Pudding”, well so many people have and are continuing to have amazing results from this product. That’s better than any study!
Talk to those who are using it and have had results with glucose levels, cholesterol, and even glaucoma. There are many other things, like arthritis pain, who someone I personally have seen the difference in her 65 year old hands. Only thing she changed is taking Protandim. She can now open up jars again, like she never had any arthritic issues.
I may have come off hard, but yes, Wikipedia has some poor information about Protandim on it. When a friend tried to notify them of their errors, they ignored it. In other words, they are biased.
Most people who hate on LifeVantage are personally against MLM. There are currently doctors coming on board to share this, even a cardiologist at the Tommy Lasorda Heart Institute. This is still new and many are catching on. I don’t like it when something good is out there and helping people and someone wants to put it down and yet, won’t try it out for themselves.
Many universities around the country and world are spending their dimes on studying Protandim with diseases! Why would they do this if the science before it wasn’t worth wile? Why are they going on year 7 or 8 at the University of Minnesota to see how it helps with diabetes if it wasn’t working?
Would you waste your money for that long if there wasn’t results? That’s all I’m trying to say.
Dan, just a few thoughts:
1. pharm companies must start research on animals before progressing to humans. That’s just good/smart science.
2. When you say no human studies are needed on protandim because its “natural,” are you aware of human side effects from natural products? They do exist. Just a few include:
A. Beta carotene causing lung cancer in smokers
B. Gingko being associated with strokes
C. St Johns wort interfering with MANY medications
As for the Wikipedia article, don’t through the baby out with the bathwater. I’m wiling to discuss problems with the Protandim article they show.
Hey Joe — Lunch cancer; that’s sweious
Ron, oops, I meant lung cancer! I must have been thinking about food 🙂 I’ll fix that typo – thanks!
Dan,
Where is your proof that UMN is studying Protandim? Where are the results? Who, specifically, is doing the work? Human, test tube, or rodent study?
Years ago, Paul Myhill posted on his blog about a doctor using Protandim in diabetes research at UMN and attributed a positive quote about Protandim to the doctor. I contacted the researcher and he absolutely denied saying it. Within a day or two, the blog where Myhill posted the quote was taken down. I can only assume that either the researcher, or a university representative contacted Lifevantage to have the quote removed.
So again, where is your proof that UMN is doing research involving Protandim and diabetes? I looked at their website, and they only mention studies on transplanting islet cells. Not a peep about Protandim.
Dan, You started off with, “For years pharmaceuticals spend billions of dollars on rats and test tubes before people. Why? The main reason is because they have synthetic, not natural products. These “drugs” need to be tested on people to see the side effects on humans, to make sure that they don’t kill anyone.”
I have to totally disagree with you. The main reason most researchers use “rats and test tubes” is that it’s far less expensive and safer than human trials. A test of several generations of rats can be done in months. A researcher can tightly control the rat’s diet. Try either of those using human subjects.
While I have not one shred of proof of a single medical university doing ANY research Protandim on their own dime, I have long searched for such… give me a name and contact person, I want to talk with them. Seriously.
The real problem is not synthetic drugs vs. natural herbal research. There has been a ton of research on supplements, published and peer reviewed. That includes human trials on the various ingredients found in Protandim – some with quite impressive results. The problem is (in spite of Protandim being patented) very little payback for doing expensive human trials. No one can patented food and hold any exclusive on such. LifeVantage patented a formula comprised of food (herbs, if you will). If it were proven in a laboratory, that Protandim, as formulated, did improve life of human subjects, LifeVantage would be drowned out by “Me-too” copy-cats with a claim of “Just like Protandim only better.”
The Ohio study of the results of Protandim on blood vessels exposed to the oxygen levels found in arterial vessels is impressive. It begs for human trials. Currently veins from the leg implanted into the chest and functioning as an artery have a 50% failure rate after 10 years. If half the population of such patients were to take Protandim regularly for 10 years, they should show a statistically significant reduction in failure of the bypass – The results also will be unambiguous – did the bypass fail, yes or no?
It is a proven fact that as the human body ages past age 40 to 45, the body does not handle stress as well as it once did. Anything that would improve the body’s response to stress would be a good thing. Protandim has a body of anecdotal reports that indicates that it is likely fulfilling a antioxidant function for many people. For those it doesn’t help, there could be a raft of reasons (besides it may be a snake oil) – one reason of which the individual may have a lowered liver function and can not synthesize a needed Glutathione Precursor ~ Cysteine.
It is my understanding that several colleges and universities are investigating Protandim-like herbal preparations to reduces the severity of traumatic brain injury (concussions, to the general public). Their interest is based on the Research published in Nature. Jan 9, 2014 (NIHMSID: NIHMS533712), (PMCID: PMC3930079), titled “TRANSCRANIAL AMELIORATION OF INFLAMMATION AND CELL DEATH FOLLOWING BRAIN INJURY.”
Only the abstract is available free, you can buy the whole paper for $32. The Abstract does not reveal the most interesting findings in my opinion. One of which was how fast cell death in the meninges occurred (within 5 minutes) but was not observed in the parenchyma until 9–12 hrs post-injury. The researchers then applied Glutathione at 15 min and 3 hrs following compression injury to determine the impact on cell death. The amount of cell death (and hence the severity of the injury) was greatly reduced with the quicker availability of Glutathione.
The indications in this study are how concussion damage develops and how it can be contained to large extent by Glutathione. Priming the body pregame is thought to be a viable way to reduce the damage of sports head injury.
This particular study, as new as it is, has been highly cited in other studies, both in PubMed and PMC.
The authors have also put two videos up on YouTube that give some background information on their study. Use the name of the study to locate them. The actual study included almost a dozen videos with narration.
Ronald said: “Dan, you started off with…these “drugs” need to be tested on people to see the side effects on humans, to make sure that they don’t kill anyone.” I have to totally disagree with you. The main reason most researchers use “rats and test tubes” is that it’s far less expensive and safer than human trials.”
Wrong. It is not a choice simply left to the discretion of researchers as to whether an investigational therapeutic agent is studied in rodents/test tubes versus humans; nor is it simply an issue of cost or safety. The development process is linear. Review boards, medical ethics committees, and regulatory agencies require that preliminary evidence be established for an investigational agent in non-human models prior to even considering whether studies in humans should/can be conducted. One can conduct simple mechanism of action studies in non-human models, but these aren’t necessarily applicable to people, and if the goal is to develop an agent as a medical therapy, then it must ultimately be tested in human clinical trials.
In addition, positive findings (i.e. safety and efficacy) in animal models and test tubes are by no means a guarantee that an investigational agent will show the same properties in humans, and in fact, the overwhelming majority of compounds that show promise in preliminary models fail at the early clinical trial phase and as a result are scrapped.
Ronald said: “While I have not one shred of proof of a single medical university doing ANY research Protandim on their own dime, I have long searched for such… give me a name and contact person, I want to talk with them. Seriously.”
Well if you can’t prove it, then hopefully we’ll never hear you say again that universities are studying Protandim on their own dime. They’re not.
Ronald said: “The problem is (in spite of Protandim being patented) very little payback for doing expensive human trials.”
That’s silly. If Protandim actually did anything, the payback would be astronomical.
Ronald said: “No one can patented food and hold any exclusive on such. LifeVantage patented a formula comprised of food (herbs, if you will). If it were proven in a laboratory, that Protandim, as formulated, did improve life of human subjects, LifeVantage would be drowned out by “Me-too” copy-cats with a claim of “Just like Protandim only better.”
That makes no sense whatsoever. First you say that Protandim is patented, which is true, then you directly contradict yourself by saying that “food” like Protandim can’t be patented. Worse still, you claim that if Protandim were proven to work, it would be imitated by copycat products. This too makes no sense. If the product is patented, no one can make a direct copy of the product. If what you meant is that competitors could launch similar and equally effective products that are different enough to not violate the patent, then what you’re really saying is that there is nothing unique about the effect of Protandim, since it can be so easily duplicated using entirely different formulations.
Protandim is patented, and therefore if it actually had any effect on human diseases, it would be a blockbuster. However this is nothing more than fantasy; BS spread by a deceptive company about a worthless product used as bait for a pyramid scheme populated by naifs and desperadoes.
Ronald said: “The Ohio study of the results of Protandim on blood vessels exposed to the oxygen levels found in arterial vessels is impressive. It begs for human trials.”
They aren’t impressive and they do not beg for clinical trials; that’s why in the 4 years since that study was published, none have been undertaken. The company hasn’t even said one word to suggest that they think such studies would be promising.
Ronald said: “Currently veins from the leg implanted into the chest and functioning as an artery have a 50% failure rate after 10 years. If half the population of such patients were to take Protandim regularly for 10 years, they should show a statistically significant reduction in failure of the bypass.”
That’s complete and utter BS and an illegal therapeutic claim. You can’t possibly predict the outcome of such a study. If Protandim had even an inkling of promise for the protection of venous grafts, then it would be developed as such. It has not been and never will be for one simple reason – it doesn’t do anything in people.
Ronald said: “Protandim has a body of anecdotal reports that indicates that it is likely fulfilling a antioxidant function for many people.”
Anecdotal reports are incapable of assessing antioxidant effects. What you’re really saying is that you have secret knowledge of unvetted unverifiable testimonials that Protandim does something which logic dictates it cannot possibly do. And on that, I once again call BS.
Ronald said: “It is my understanding that several colleges and universities are investigating Protandim-like herbal preparations to reduces the severity of traumatic brain injury.”
You are clearly implying that Protandim can ameliorate TBI. That’s a false an illegal claim that you should walk back immediately.
Jeez, Vogel, Your inability to read and comprehend English always amazes me. I didn’t say what you hoped I said but that never stops you from disagreeing with what you imagine I wrote. There’s a rock waiting for you to crawl back under and finish your mental masturbation.
Ronald said: “Jeez, Vogel, Your inability to read and comprehend English always amazes me. I didn’t say what you hoped I said but that never stops you from disagreeing with what you imagine I wrote. There’s a rock waiting for you to crawl back under and finish your mental masturbation.”
As always, I quoted what you said verbatim. If you don’t like being hung by your own words, stop making such foolish comments.
I have one comment to make to LisaRob and any others on the discussion on her father being taken off of Protandim. Doctors always want to know what supplements their patients are taking because supplements can interact with prescription drugs. It’s a common practice for all supplements, not just Protandim. (For example, Vit. K and coumadin.) Ultimately, prescription drugs are compounded from natural and/or chemical ingredients, so any vitamin or supplemental product could interact with a prescription drug.
It just depends on the particular drug and supplement being combined. The doctor wasn’t picking on Protandim because it was Protandim, but because one of the ingredients could possibly interact with the prescription drug that he was taking, or cause an overdose of an ingredient in combination.
i agree with your statement. I also want to add that the Protandim distributor (family member) tried to insist that my Dad be put back on Protandim, but that didn’t happen.
Doctors tend to look at Protandim as a pharmaceutical. Pharmaceuticals are all required by the FDA to go through double blind, human clinical testing to prove they are safe and also to prove they have the expected results. Plant-based products aren’t required to have this level of investigation because they are natural substances. For this reason, many doctors are not willing to consider the original human clinical study as valid.
LifeVantage does not market Protandim as a cure for any disease. It is marketed as a nutraceutical that does one thing for 100% of those who take it—it lowers oxidative stress by an average of 40% in 30 days, down to the level of a child. It’s simple to take, effective for everyone, affordable, accessible. It creates an environment of reduced oxidative stress and makes the shift from unhealthy to healthy by activating our own bodies’ defense systems.
LifeVantage never needs to prove anything other than this. It’s now in the hands of the scientific community to research what impact this reduction in adults may have on various diseases in which oxidative stress is a central characteristic. It’s significant that, based on the original human clinical study, there are major universities and research centers around the world spending millions of dollars of their own money to study Protandim as it relates to various conditions and diseases.
All but the first few studies are independent studies and not conducted by, commissioned, or paid for by LifeVantage. Dr. McCord’s name is on the studies because he’s the formulator of Protandim.
Other notes:
Why taking the individual ingredients is not the same as taking the patented formulation: The amounts of the 5 ingredients in Protandim are small. Unlike taking a lot of a natural product to multiply its effects, it is the synergy of very small amounts in these ingredients that unlocks the Nrf2 activity. See the study on Pubmed showing the difference between individual ingredients and the formulation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19056485
They can look at the studies on Nrf2 in general to learn about Nrf2 activation, oxidative stress, and why Protandim is important: http://www.nrf2.com/?page_id=38
This may be something out of a doctor’s normal sphere and they may not be interested in looking further, but offer to put them in touch with other medical professionals if they would like to discuss.
There are an additional 215 plus studies on Google Scholar. You might want to checkout this link as well. http://www.lvnmedia.com/media/131526/Lazyman%20FAQs%204_4_14.pdf
Why take advice from someone who has no medical background? Why do his work for him? LifeVantage is suing him, aka Vogel.
Angela, when you say Dr McCord is the formulator of Protandim, do you mean he created it? If yes I believe that is not so. It’s been discussed here several times. Who told you he created it?
Let’s get it right. Dr McCord was a co-discoverer of SOD and Vogel is trying to lead us away from the darkness.
Holy cats, Angela! That was quite a compilation of LifeVantage BS! Every single thing you brought up has already been discussed in the comments multiple times! You are dead wrong on everything, and that takes some effort!
Your concluding comment is unintentionally amusing. Why take advice from someone with no medical background? Are Protandim distributors MD’s? They are full of advice…..and trying to make a buck by selling their product. Why are we to take THEIR advice?
Are you aware that Paul Myhill, the inventor of this curry pill, no longer takes it and is on to his next MLM scam?
Good to know. Thx. Who else is not taking it?
Angela Hart said: “Doctors tend to look at Protandim as a pharmaceutical.”
Wrong. Doctors tend to not look at Protandim at all — it just doesn’t wind up on their radar screen, except in a few rare instances when a distributor tries to pitch it to them, in which case the doctor would view it for what it is; not a pharmaceutical but rather a fraudulently marketed unregulated unproven snakeoil supplement sold by degenerate MLM scammers.
Angela Hart said: “Pharmaceuticals are all required by the FDA to go through double blind, human clinical testing to prove they are safe and also to prove they have the expected results. Plant-based products aren’t required to have this level of investigation because they are natural substances.”
I won’t even ask how you got such a misguided notion – it was surely something your upline spoon-fed you during your indoctrination into the cult.
The regulations are as follows: if a company intends to market a product – herbal or not – as something that can treat, prevent, cure, or mitigate the symptoms of a disease or medical condition, then it is considered a “drug” by definition, and it must therefore pass stringent clinical testing and regulatory hurdles prior to commercialization. A company can sell a dietary supplement – herbal or not – without any prior testing or approval as long as they don’t promote it as a “drug” (according to the FDA’s definition). Selling a “supplement” as a “drug” is illegal (e.g., what LifeVantage does with Pretendumb).
Angela Hart said: “LifeVantage does not market Protandim as a cure for any disease.“
Au contraire. LifeVantage and its agents have consistently marketed Pretndumb (illegally) as a drug. This has been documented a hundred times over.
Angela Hart said: “It is marketed as a nutraceutical that does one thing for 100% of those who take it—it lowers oxidative stress by an average of 40% in 30 days, down to the level of a child.”
You provide a vivid example of how poorly LifeVantage trains its distributors and how they chronically violate company policy and federal regulations. Your compliance manual states specifically that you’re not allowed to claim that it works in 100% of people:
“Unacceptable Claims: ‘Protandim works 100% of the time’”
https://www.hisadvocates.org/g/affiliates-marketers-producers-for-compensation/fileSendAction/fcType/5/fcOid/327527224083767344/fodoid/327527224083767342/to_say_or_not_to_say.pdf
It’s obvious why you and your fellow distributors don’t follow the rules — thy were meant to be broken and DeathVantage doesn’t enforce them.
[Note: For LisaRob’s reference, the policy also states that these too are unacceptable claims:
“Protandim works in all mammals 100% of the time”; “Protandim works in all mammals”]
Angela Hart said: “It’s simple to take, effective for everyone, affordable, accessible.”
It’s no simpler to take than a 7-cent multivitamin; Protandim is also less accessible (other supplements are sold at the supermarket), and it’s far far less affordable. The tiny bit of raw material in Protandim is probably worth about a dime but they mark it up by about 15-fold.
Angela Hart said: “LifeVantage never needs to prove anything other than this.”
They wouldn’t have had to had they not gone around telling the world that it cures freakin’ cancer and every other disease under the sun. But instead of respecting the law, they played fast and loose and are now suffering the consequences (i.e., the business is dying as evidenced by the 50% drop in the price of the company’s stock over the past year).
Angela Hart said: “It’s now in the hands of the scientific community to research what impact this reduction in adults may have on various diseases in which oxidative stress is a central characteristic.”
The scientific community couldn’t give a rat’s arse about Protandim and the last thing they would do is independently study it as a treatment for diseases. People only do research on Protandim when LifeVantage is compensating them.
Angela Hart said: “It’s significant that, based on the original human clinical study, there are major universities and research centers around the world spending millions of dollars of their own money to study Protandim as it relates to various conditions and diseases.”
Virtually all of the research was either funded or authored by LifeVantage, and there is no evidence that anyone spent millions of dollars researching Protandim. A mouse study could be done for a few thousand and a small scale human trial for 50K or less. It only strengthens the case against Protandim when the information you foist upon people is invented out of thin air.
Angela Hart said: “All but the first few studies are independent studies and not conducted by, commissioned, or paid for by LifeVantage. Dr. McCord’s name is on the studies because he’s the formulator of Protandim.”
First, McCord did not create Protandim. It was invented by Paul Myhill and Bill Driscoll (both non-scientists). Second, one does not get listed as an author unless they have made substantial contributions to the design, execution, analysis, interpretation, and write-up of the research. If McCord were to take credit as an author merely for having invented the product (which he didn’t) then he would be committing fraud.
http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#two
Angela Hart said: “Other notes: Why taking the individual ingredients is not the same as taking the patented formulation: The amounts of the 5 ingredients in Protandim are small.”
That’s complete and utter BS. The amounts of each ingredient in Protandim are public knowledge, so there’s no reason someone couldn’t buy the raw ingredients in bulk, take them in the same proportions, and achieve the same results as the original formulation for a tiny fraction of the price. The patented ratio itself is BS too. LifeVantage has never proven that the ratio matters in humans who take the product. Furthermore, they arbitrarily changed the recipe for the Japan market because regulators there wouldn’t allow them to sell Ashwaganda (which is a red flag in itself), so it was substituted with piperine. And if the ratio did matter, then consuming even a tiny bit of cumin or tea or anything else that has antioxidant effects or activates NRF2 (as hundreds of common compounds and toxins do), then the magic ratio would be negated. What you’re telling us is a shoddy marketing fairy tale, nothing more.
Angela Hart said: “They can look at the studies on Nrf2 in general to learn about Nrf2 activation, oxidative stress, and why Protandim is important”
Protandim has never been shown to activate NRF2 in humans; not even a little bit. And even if it did, so what? Hundreds of common compounds and toxins activate NRF2. No reputable medical authorities advise healthy people to attempt to induce NRF2 through supplementation or any other means. Furthermore, of the few NRF2 activating compounds that have been investigated in human subjects with diseases — e.g. Tecfidera/BG-12 and oltipraz – all showed significant toxicities. If Protandim operates via the same mechanism then it would follow that it would likely also have significant toxicities, and the product has never undergone stringent safety testing to rule out the possibility of it producing adverse effects, both short- and long-term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFE2L2#Potential_adverse_effects_of_NRF2_activation
Angela Hart said: “This may be something out of a doctor’s normal sphere…”
I would certainly hope that supplements illegally marketed using fraudulent claims and shoddy pseudoscience and sold via a pyramid scheme would be outside a doctor’s normal sphere.
Angela Hart said: “…offer to put them in touch with other medical professionals if they would like to discuss.”
Who are these alleged medical professionals you’re offering to put people in touch with? We’re discussing Protandim here and now; we have been for quite some time. If you know of any medical professionals who want to discuss it further, send them over here.
Angela Hart said: “Why take advice from someone who has no medical background?”
Like you? Like one of the other lying idiot distributors who doesn’t know their arse from their elbow? I agree wholeheartedly – why indeed. But that begs the question as to why bother marketing the product via MLM in the first place, since the overwhelming majority of distributors don’t have a medical background (in fact, it would be a surprise if they graduated high school)
Angela Hart said: “LifeVantage is suing him, aka Vogel.”
That’s news to me. No one is suing me, and I can assure you with the utmost confidence that it would be LieVantage’s worst nightmare come true if they ever tried.
Are there other supplements that will work
Brina, work for what? It depends on what topic you are wondering about.
Oxidative stress…what else?
There are a few issues with Brina’s question. She asked if there are “other” supplements that work, which implies that Protandim “works”, when in fact it doesn’t.
If her use of the term “work” referred to oxidative stress then it must be pointed out that Protandim doesn’t work. The company advertises that Protandim reduces TBARS (a particularly unreliable surrogate marker of oxidative stress) in blood plasma, based on the results of a poorly designed preliminary human study (Nelson et al 2006) that featured LifeVantage executives as authors and LifeVantage investors as test subjects (the latter being a crucial and damning detail, which LifeVantage inadvertently admitted only after the study has been published). However, a subsequent better designed human study (Burnham et al 2012) failed to replicate those weak and tainted preliminary results – Protandim had no effect on TBARS/oxidative stress). In other words, it doesn’t work.
http://www.protandimscams.com/lifevantage-company-insiders-investors-human-trial/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22268125
There’s also the issue that measuring the effect of a compound on oxidative stress in blood plasma is largely irrelevant because antioxidants in blood don’t necessarily crossover into tissues/organs, which is where oxidative stress is relevant, particularly with respect to disease processes. There are several methods available for measuring oxidative stress on organs/tissues, which are far more advanced and reliable than measuring TBARS in plasma, but to date, LifeVantage has never used any of them.
http://www.healthmlmscam.com/tbars-an-unreliable-test-of-oxidative-stress/
As for other supplements that can reliably reduce oxidative stress in plasma, vitamin C is one of them.
http://www.currenttherapeuticres.com/article/S0011-393X(97)80029-X/abstract
But the scientific consensus is that, despite being able to lower TBARS in plasma, vitamin C supplementation is useless for preventing/treating diseases.
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7547741/vitamin-c-myth-pauling
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6901405.stm
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-return-of-the-revenge-of-high-dose-vitamin-c-for-cancer/
There’s also the issue that the supplement industry is rife with corruption and fraud. In the best case scenario, the products they sell are merely useless; however, they often do not contain the ingredients listed on the label and are adulterated, and in many cases they can be downright harmful.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/science/herbal-supplements-are-often-not-what-they-seem.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/opinion/sunday/dont-take-your-vitamins.html
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/a-challenge-to-vitamins/
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/why-vitamins-may-be-bad-for-your-workout/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/us/spike-in-harm-to-liver-is-tied-to-dietary-aids.html
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/why-dangerous-supplements-linger-on-shelves/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/opinion/the-politics-of-fraudulent-dietary-supplements.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-j-cederquist-md/truth-supplements_b_6678188.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/business/supplement-drugs-may-contain-dangerous-ingredients.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/03/1361935/-NYT-NY-AG-Schneiderman-Demands-Major-Chains-Pull-Supplements-Off-Shelves
Sound like Vogel is saying that changing ones’ life style or using prescribed drugs e.g. antibiotics is a better alternative. While most will not change their lifestyle so readily, using prescription drugs doesn’t always work as well.
One prime example is the irritable bowel disease (IBD). What triggers that? Antibiotics! Clostridium Difficile, or C-diff, is a bacterium that overgrows when you have taken too many antibiotics. And the drug for ulcerative colitis brought in $1.7 billion in 2010. And, drug sales for this one problem (alone) are projected to reach $3 billion in a few years – especially as newer (toxic) therapies for this condition emerges.
Since there is enough evidence that it causes problems, why is it still in the market? And who’s bank acct is getting bigger? Obviously, not the low or middle income earners. So, if you totally believe you’ve been lied to, join some other MLM company and save yourselves the disappointment.
Atomic that’s interesting. My 8 year old cousin has IBS likely born with it and I serious doubt he has had too many or any really antibiotics to cause that and neither have any of his specialists at top Sydney hospitals stated any link to that.
the Mayo clinic has a great guide on IBS for those who wish to familiarise themselves with it seeing it’s been raised…
Don’t see your argument having any relevance at all
Have a great day
Aloha Melly,
Check out Jini Patel Thompson’s ListenToYourGut.com site for your little cousin’s IBS symptoms. I ordered some of her products for my husband – we called it astronaut food. She does touch upon IBS quite often, which was not our problem. Maybe the info presented will help your cousin.
honoluluaunty91 said: “Check out Jini Patel Thompson’s ListenToYourGut.com site for your little cousin’s IBS symptoms. I ordered some of her products for my husband – we called it astronaut food. She does touch upon IBS quite often, which was not our problem. Maybe the info presented will help your cousin.”
I beg to differ. Steer clear of wonky websites like the one that aunty suggested. Use reliable medical sources. But I’m preaching to the choir. Melly doesn’t need a reminder like that; she’s rational and sane.
Like many other cases, some people are born with problems and some are not, but no one should take antibiotics if they can do without it. I was prescibed antibiotics once before, and tossed it in the trash can after the third day because the side effects were too strong. If Protandim or anything similar gave me the result I needed I would stay with it, and wouldn’ give a hoot to all the naysayers..
Atomic said: “no one should take antibiotics if they can do without it.”
That’s stating the obvious isn’t it? It’s like saying that no one should undergo a cardiac bypass operation unless they need it.
Atomic said: “I was prescibed antibiotics once before, and tossed it in the trash can after the third day because the side effects were too strong.”
That’s how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria flourish. Not a smart move. You’re lucky to be alive.
Atomic said: “If Protandim or anything similar gave me the result I needed I would stay with it, and wouldn’ give a hoot to all the naysayers.”
Except Protandim doesn’t kill bacteria or fight infections, so why would you even suggest something so absurd?
Absurd? The immune system deals with that and yet, we are told that vitamin C helps boost the immune system but we know that is not enough. Until we all get out of the dirty environment and live a healthy lifestyle, all the medication in the world wont do much but at least it helps in some way. And I for one will NOT consider Protandim useless if positive result are seen by people using it.
wow whoa Atomic you throw away antibiotics which is a miracle proven drug and you are just on the fence about Protandium which nothing has been proved…..huh?
Atomic said: “Sound like Vogel is saying that changing ones’ life style or using prescribed drugs e.g. antibiotics is a better alternative.”
No it doesn’t sound like Vogel is saying that. I’m consistently direct and literal so there’s never a need to try to (mis)read between the lines.
Alternative to what exactly? Protandim??? That’s like asking “what’s an alternative to burning 50 dollar bills with a match”. The alternative is simply to not burn $50 bills. It’s not a choice between Protandim vs some other product. It’s Protandim vs not Protandim. Clearly, “not Protandim” is the overwhelmingly more rational choice.
Atomic said: “One prime example is the irritable bowel disease (IBD). What triggers that? Antibiotics! Clostridium Difficile, or C-diff, is a bacterium that overgrows when you have taken too many antibiotics.”
You’re badly confused. IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) and C-Diff are two entirely different diseases with distinct diagnoses, and IBD is not caused by antibiotics. C-diff is not caused by “too many antibiotics”; it is associated with exposure to specific singular antibiotics – almost exclusively in high risk populations; i.e., among the elderly in settings where Clostridium difficile bacteria exposure and outbreaks typically occur (hospitals and nursing homes).
And what does that have to do with the subject at hand? It’s bad enough that you’re consistently wrong when you talk about Protandim; no need to stray off topic to IBD and C-Diff and be wrong about that as well. Where do you get chutzpah to play doctor on blogs when you are so obviously lacking in medical knowledge. God forbid anyone actually listens to you. You should be afraid that someone might.
Atomic said: “Since there is enough evidence that it causes problems, why is it still in the market?”
Are you seriously asking why antibiotics are still on the market? Don’t waste people’s time by asking them to spoon-feed you the answers to imbecilic off topic questions.
Atomic said: “And who’s bank acct is getting bigger? Obviously, not the low or middle income earners.”
That’s not relevant to either Protandim or antibiotics. Where do you come up with such ridiculous notions? Low and middle income earner’s bank accounts are much bigger as a result of antibiotics. Without antibiotics, many of those people would be debilitated or die prematurely due to simple treatable infections; instead, they’re alive, working, and putting money in the bank.
Please stay on topic from here on in.
I didn’t leave the topic. That was an example, and I liken it to every medication under the sun. We can stick to Protandim all day if you want but I don’t care who produced it, who’s endorsing it and who is making money. Until Lifevantage gets shut down, it’s obvious Protandim will not disappear. And I’m glad u want the whole world to see the lies taking place.So let’s see what happens here on out.
Atomic said: “I didn’t leave the topic. That was an example, and I liken it to every medication under the sun. We can stick to Protandim all day if you want”
Yes, I want that, so kindly stay on topic from here on in.
LisaRob said: “I also find it very strange that a former Biogen employee, Rob Cutler, is a LifeVantage employee. What are the odds?”
Great find! A smoking gun.
Patsrick1943 said: “Oh, and the unpublished study which said Protandim was the more potent activator was funded by Biogen Idec, not LifeVantage.”
Patsrick1943 said: “Vogel, if you see the footnote of the abstract it plainly states that Dr. J. van Horssen received research grants from BiogenIdec.”
As I re-read these comments, I noticed another act of deception on the part of Patsrick and LifeVantage. Namely, the abstract in question does not state that the research was funded by Biogen; it merely says the following:
“Dr. J. van Horssen received research grants from BiogenIdec.”
Maybe he did, but that’s a far cry from saying that THIS research itself was funded by Biogen, which is clearly not what was stated in the abstract. Patsrick changed his tune form initially saying that the work was funded by Biogen to saying merely that the author had received grants from Biogen in the past. It would make no sense for Biogen to have funded this work and there is no reason to assume that they did. More importantly, the work, which was not even conducted in human subjects, was so shoddy that it failed to get published.
And then there’s still the issue that NRF activators in clinical development all have a myriad of adverse effects (and therefore, by extension, so too should Protandim) and that the only adequately designed clinical study on Protandim showed that it did absolutely nothing.
Patsrick is fixated on a losing argument and beating the dead horse to death.
An earlier comment suggested that anything we say would be twisted and I did not think that was a fair complaint. Apparently I was wrong. Lisa Rob you are putting words in my mouth and that is unsanitary. And Vogel, if you see the footnote of the abstract it plainly states that Dr. J. van Horssen received research grants from BiogenIdec. It also seems to me that funding is not the same as being one of the authors of a study. But what do I know? I only read the studies and the patents. I neither paid for them nor participated in them.
patsrick1943 said “An earlier comment suggested that anything we say would be twisted and I did not think that was a fair complaint. Apparently I was wrong.”
You can drop the charade of being an impartial observer now. I didn’t twist anything you said, and if you read the previous comments you’d see (a) a long history of LifeVantage shills like Greg making unfounded, deceptive, and just plain stupid comments, and (b) that I have painstakingly applied my extensive knowledge on the subject to correct the misinformation that LifeVantage shills like Greg (and you) have posted here.
Instead of being thankful, you’re now trying to play the victim by accusing me of twisting your words, when in fact all I did was correct your misstatements and flawed assertions.
patsrick1943 said: “And Vogel, if you see the footnote of the abstract it plainly states that Dr. J. van Horssen received research grants from BiogenIdec. It also seems to me that funding is not the same as being one of the authors of a study. But what do I know? I only read the studies and the patents. I neither paid for them nor participated in them.”
You’re purposely avoiding the big picture — i.e. that the study in question was not a “study” per se but rather just a research abstract, which holds no scientific value (because it has not undergone peer-review and the methods, data, and interpretation cannot be scrutinized), and after 3 years it has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, indicating that the research lacked merit.
Instead you focus myopically on the issue of whether or not it was funded by Biogen. My response was simply that we have no evidence from Biogen that they funded the study (and it’s illogical that they would have); however the funding source is a minor issue compared to the fact that the “study” itself is worthless.
Furthermore, you also conveniently skipped past the detail I pointed out about past clinical research demonstrating that NRF2 activators all have serious adverse effects (in other words, if Protandim was in fact a more potent NRF2 activator than other known NRF2 activators such as BG-12, then it would be logical to expect that it would also produce more severe adverse effects).
Now that we know you’re a distributor (Richard Barton ID# 404797) for this garbage product, you can drop all pretense of being an impartial observer; you can take off the kid gloves and fight all out, since this was apparently your intention al along. You came here to promote the product on the basis of mouse studies, which is not legally permissible, unpublished research (the abstract, which has no value), and the false implication that the body of research on Pretendumb was free from financial conflict of interest. That’s an epic fail.
You seem like a nice old man that got suckered in by all the BS, but it’s not too late to straighten out and fly right. Be part of the solution, not the problem. Don’t spend your twilight years as a conniving snakeoil hustler.
Patsrick1943, I don’t really see where I “put words in your mouth.” You went on and on about how mice are used in research (as if anyone denies this). I think anyone reading it would conclude that you posted the info to imply that the mouse studies done on Protandim are applicable to humans and should be considered proof enough that the product is scientifically validated.
True, you did not actually say that, but If that was not your intent, then what on earth was it? Please enlighten us as to why you felt a need to let us know how mice are used in research.
I suppose anyone who interprets what you are saying is putting words in your mouth, but really, there had to be a point to what you were saying, so I responded to what you were very obviously implying.
I pointed out that PubMed (and every scientist on the planet, by the way) does not support the assertion that you can take studies on mice and directly apply them to humans.
Let’s take it one step further. Do you think you could inject a highly concentrated alcohol extract of a product into one human subject and expect the same results if you were to give another human subject a pill to swallow of the same (but lower concentration) product? It just doesn’t make sense, does it?
As Vogel pointed out, the Biogen study is worthless. I also find it very strange that a former Biogen employee, Rob Cutler, is a LifeVantage employee. What are the odds?
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rob-cutler/12/83/703
also to add another bit of information, I noticed on the protandim for dogs my sister claims (distributor) that mice studies show that it is good for dogs and therefore good for all animals….the assumption being (I’m guessing) is this 1) a mouse is a mammal 2) it is good for mice 3) a dog is a mammal therefore 4) it must be good for dogs 5) in fact must be good for all mammals.
Most people understand that dogs and cats are mammals however different drugs can kill one while helping the other, it is not a quid pro quo.
Claudia said: “I noticed on the protandim for dogs my sister claims (distributor) that mice studies show that it is good for dogs and therefore good for all animals….the assumption being (I’m guessing) is this 1) a mouse is a mammal 2) it is good for mice 3) a dog is a mammal therefore 4) it must be good for dogs 5) in fact must be good for all mammals.
Most people understand that dogs and cats are mammals however different drugs can kill one while helping the other, it is not a quid pro quo.”
Claudia you are confusing biological/immunity systems with digestion/allergic reactions. Even humans can be killed by foods they are allergic to (peanuts, for example) while other people have no such adverse reaction. And, I might add, Protandim is a dietary supplement, not a drug.
All mammals (actually ALL vertebrates) have a extremely similar immunity system, the differences being what antigens the DNA has developed over generations of pathogen exposure. So, people that lived through exposure to the Black Plague centuries ago also have a strong resistance to HIV/AIDS. However, when involved in a immunity or stress response, the same genes are turned on and the same antioxidants and leukocytes are brought into being.
Interestingly enough even the plant kingdom reacts to biotic and abiotic stress much the same way as the animal kingdom. Different pathways are involved but glutathione, SOD and other antioxide products are produced by a healthy plant under stress conditions. A well tended field of corn will be free of many things (such as smut and insect infestations) while a stressed crop in the next field will be over run with grasshoppers and other diseases.
None of the above is intended to support Protandim, however the immunity system is far more complex and dependent on a plethora of factors besides Nrf2 activation. The trick is to identify what are the major response factors and address those.
For example, research has shown that the body’s ability to chemically handle stress as one ages begins to drop off around age 40 to 45. Is this due to (a) Nrf2 activation being less responsive, (b) the liver not synthesizing enough glutamate cysteine ligase (GCL) to produce glutathioneby the cell DNA, (c) the diet being low in the a-amino acid, cycteine (required building block for glutathione), (d) or a combination of the above or other separate causes altogether?
My specialty is studying the immunity responses in grasses and grains which is far easier due to one can measure the results of a single year application of a product. The measurement is easy due to the amount of yield the crop can produce. Because each season is different (late or wet Spring, hail, wind and drought) one can also see how the plant responded to each variation season to season.
Mice, on the other hand are slightly different to study in that multi-years are often involved. Yet, most of the variables are more controllable and easier to project.
Humans, on the other hand, are nearly impossible to study unless you have a particular large population with similar DNA (Iceland) or a similar diet (vagan, Mediterranean), so human trials of medical drugs are the most definitive as they apply to highly variable group with only one defined artificial difference.
Human trials of supplements are rare due to all the ingestion and compliance variables. We can’t be locked into cages and have our intake and out-take highly controlled and studied. Additionally, food can’t be patented so it’s also not financially lucrative.
What is easy to study today is the DNA we share with all other living things (we share about 25% of our DNA with the rice plant), and what we do share are the biological processes I mentioned in the opening paragraph; all DNA produces remarkable the same responses to stress, infections, and pathogens. So, unless one is developing a synthetic drug, it is safe to conclude that what affects a biological system in one way on any vertebrate, all other vertebrates will be similarly affected… the only variable being safe usage based on body mass.
This has led me to be much less concerned about supplement trials on various vertebrates, especially using other mammals (mice). Drug trials do require human studies; both for FDA compliance and the reason I called out earlier.
Additionally, as I spelled out, even trying to stimulate glutathione in the body, relies on far too many biological systems (including diet and aging) to assume affecting any one of the systems will cure or even mitigate any identifiable diseases.
Happy new year everyone! And here we go again .. Some things just never change!! Ha!
Good luck Vogel, Lisa, Claudia 🙂
very true 🙂
A few years ago I was told Protandim would be great for my horse….because of the “it works in all mammals” nonsense. Of course, there haven’t been any studies involving horses and Protandim, but that never stops a distributor from trying to push this stuff on you.
My BS detector went off because I know that a horse’s digestive system is vastly different than a human’s. I’m not a scientist though, so I contacted a Ph.D in Equine management at Rutger’s (who does antioxidant research) for her opinion. I shared her response with the distributor and she immediately came back to try and discredit the researcher by saying she isn’t “published.” I sent a list of the doctor’s publications. Then the distributor said the researcher wasn’t published on PubMed. I sent her the links to PubMed. Finally, the distributor came back and said the researcher just doesn’t know what she is talking about. Uh-huh….right.
Here is the reply from the researcher:
“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. For example,
SOD, which is one of the enzymes they looked at with this product is being
used as an antioxidant supplement in dogs, cats and humans, and has been
shown to be effective in increasing antioxidant status and decreasing
oxidative stress. When we were contracted by a company to test it in horses
we found absolutely no differences between the SOD supplement and the
control group that was not given anything. Disappointing but research
driven fact. Until it is proven effective in horses I would be
leery about purchasing the supplement for my horse.
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”
Some thoughts about the peer-reviewed published studies. But first, let’s avoid ad hominem attacks by ascribing ulterior motives to contrary opinions. We don’t actually know the motives unless they are stated. So, what about mouse studies? The National Institutes of Health has this to say:
The laboratory mouse is a major model organism for basic mammalian biology, human disease, and genome evolution, and its genome has been sequenced
…
The mouse is one of the major organisms for modeling human disease and comparative genome analysis. There are over 450 inbred strains of mice, providing a wealth of different genotypes and phenotypes for genetic and other studies. In addition, thousands of spontaneous, radiation- or chemically-induced, and transgenic mutants provide potential models for human disease.
The sequence of the mouse genome will facilitate a better understanding of the human genome and provide an important tool for biomedical research
Read more here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome?term=mus%20musculus
Reading the studies shows the source of funding, most of which are not Life Vantage. Some may say that Life Vantage partially funded the study by providing the Protandim, and that is true. However, particularly the latest study about acute mountain sickness was funded by DARPA.
Oh, and the unpublished study which said Protandim was the more potent activator was funded by Biogen Idec, not LifeVantage. One can only speculate about why they did not seek peer-review validation.
Here is the abstract of the unpublished study:
http://registration.akm.ch/einsicht.php?XNABSTRACT_ID=137548&XNSPRACHE_ID=2&XNKONGRESS_ID=150&XNMASKEN_ID=900
patsrick1943 said: “So, what about mouse studies?”
The bottom line about mouse studies is that they are not applicable to humans. They cannot be used to support product marketing claims and they are not a reliable indicator of results in human subjects. Double blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical studies are the gold standard and the only acceptable form of evidence for determining effects in humans, and the only such study ever conducted on Protandim showed that the product did absolutely nothing – zero, zilch, nada!
In summary, mouse studies do not provide results applicable to humans, they cannot be legally used to support marketing claims, and in the case of Protandim, they are rendered moot by clinical trial data demonstrating the product’s ineffectiveness in modulating oxidative stress. Nothing more needs to be said.
patsrick1943 said: “Reading the studies shows the source of funding, most of which are not Life Vantage.”
Wrong. Virtually all of the studies were either funded by LifeVantage or featured a LifeVantage executive/shareholder (which presents a conflict of interest) as an author. If your intention was to suggest that the studies are in any way free from bias, you couldn’t be farther from the truth. And again, the point is rendered moot by the RCT showing that Protandim was completely ineffective in doing anything in human subjects.
patsrick1943 said: “Some may say that Life Vantage partially funded the study by providing the Protandim, and that is true.”
The only people who would say that are company shills trying to pretend that the studies were free from conflict of interest – a blatant act of deception.
patsrick1943 said: “Oh, and the unpublished study which said Protandim was the more potent activator was funded by Biogen Idec, not LifeVantage. One can only speculate about why they did not seek peer-review validation.”
One need not speculate anything. It’s a mere abstract – it’s not a legitimate study so it’s not worthy of consideration; i.e., because it’s unpublished, the methodology, results/analysis, and conclusions cannot be assessed and scrutinized, so from a scientific standpoint, it’s utterly worthless. The fact that more than 3 years have passed without the study being published indicates that it was substandard/flawed and that the work did meet peer-review standards — it can be discounted on that basis alone. And don’t believe for a second that Biogen funded this study. It wouldn’t make sense for them to do so, and no one from Biogen is saying that they did fund it; it’s just LifeVantage and their cronies saying it.
Also, you should be aware that every medicinal candidate tested to date that activates NRF2 has been found to have serious adverse effects, so even if it were true that Protandim is more potent in activating NRF2, that could a potentially harmful property. But don’t get too caught up with all the NRF2 BS anyway; it’s merely a marketing angle that LifeVantage uses to sell snakeoil and recruit pyramid scheme participants. MLM companies like this should immediately be laughed at when they invoke science to sell their worthless scam products. They use pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo to deceive naïve/gullible people; no other reason.
So patsrick943, what you are trying to say here is that an alcohol extract of Protandim injected into a rodent at a high concentration is JUST like a human digesting one pill? Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, it should.
This topic has been covered many, many times in the comments. Maybe you should read what PubMed says about laboratory studies and clinical effectiveness:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/aboutcer/
The Biogen study has also been discussed several times, as has the funding/conflict of interest topic.
Hey Joe,
I guess I will not be getting any more Protandim since I have been terminated by the company for having a review on my website – some compliance issue because I use their trademarks (?!*?). Can’t figure them out since I really liked Protandim but I suppose it might be that I don’t like the way the company does business and gave my honest opinion on both. Since it is my own blog/website and I like to be honest, the review stays up and so Aunty gets the slap.
Oh well, saving $49 per month is okay. My son the skeptic is happy. Hope the benefits of taking Protandim for 4 years has rubbed in permanently.
Aunty
Aunty, sorry that happened to you. Sometimes MLMs have a policy that mandates that distributors only have company-approved websites. I wonder if that was the issue? Either way, sorry it happened.
Thanks Joe. No problemo. Don’t think they would have approved my website unless it was 100% positive about the company and the products.
Most of my customers and distributors were gone anyway and I wasn’t making any commissions lately anyway.
Will miss the product but will find other supplements that are as good, I am sure.
Aunty, If you liked it, I’d bet you could still get protandim on Amazon, ebay or maybe even craigslist at a discount. Just a thought. Since we know what the protandim ingredients are, you could make your own too.
Im very pleased with this review. You were very unbiased and covered EVERYTHING! Im sure of my opinion on this matter now. I wish you would have done the before and after TBAR tests, not for the distributor, but for all who read this review. I know that the tests are expensive so I can’t blame you, and we would have to just test for ourselves anyway. Thank you for this! It was very helpful.
Arse to it all. It all comes down to this . Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t.. You are right !
Arse to it all. It all comes down to this . Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t.. You are right !
huh?????
Claudia … do you suppose Jude is commenting on my BPH … Do I think I can pee, or do I think I can’t pee ?? I think Jude been snorting the Protandim and not swallowing. Just MHO …. lol
Claudia … do you suppose Jude is commenting on my BPH … Do I think I can pee, or do I think I can’t pee ?? I think Jude been snorting the Protandim and not swallowing. Just MHO …. lol
hahahahahahahaha
I tried Protandim for about 6 months. This was an “on and off” trial. (a few weeks on, then a few weeks off) I’m 76 and have symptoms of BPH. When “on” the symptoms became acute to the point of day and night trips to the toilet every 2 hours; and not being able to start or completely void my bladder. During the “off” periods things would go back to what I call normal for someone with mild or minor BPH. ( 1 night trip and 2 or 3 daily trips)
My own ” on and off” trial study convinced me that there is some compound or additive in Protandim that affects the Prostate in a negative way. I don’t know what that might be, but I no longer use the product and certainly wouldn’t recommend any male with BPH or Prostate problems to use it.
Larhyde, make sure to report that adverse event to both your physician and to the FDA using their convenient online reporting system.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/ReportAdverseEvent/
Report completed …