This can be seen as a follow up post to the one here: Protandim Inventor Paul Myhill has No Medical Background. In an interview with Blogtalk radio, he says:

"I believe LifeVantage’s current science program to encourage or promote issue-specific studies is a sound strategy indeed. Since Big Pharma (through its proxy, the FDA) doesn’t allow supplements to make any disease claims, I think it’s important for the scientific literature to make those claims for us. Most people can then make the connection and understand how Protandim can be a positive part of their health regime."

It is worth noting a three things here:

1. Paul Myhill admits that LifeVantage is "encouraging" the studies. This seems to mean that the scientific community is not independently interested in studying Protandim. This explains why the research is all tied back to LifeVantage.
2. The other interesting thing here is that he seems to admit this effort isn't about studying Protandim, but it is about putting scientific literature out there to market towards the average person.
3. Finally Paul Myhill defames the pharmaceutical industry with an unfounded claim that the government organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) works as a proxy for their interests.

Originally posted 2011-06-04 18:23:15.

We already know that LifeVantage's Joe McCord Illegally Says that Protandim is about Cancer Prevention, but it's worth documenting other instances of this claim. That reference was in a brochure intended for distributors, logically intended to get them to talk about Protandim as something that prevents cancer.

Enter this article about 'The Fountain of Youth' in 5280 Magazine. In it we have this great quote:

"McCord, chief scientific officer for LifeVantage, the makers of Protandim (protandim.com), says one pill a day could help keep everything from cancer and Alzheimer’s disease to baldness and creaky joints away."

At first I gave LifeVantage the benefit of the doubt and figured that the journalist or the magazine misrepresented what McCord had said. However, as this website has proved time and again with illegal claims, they haven't earned any benefit of the doubt - quite the opposite. When you have examples of television stations spreading the lie that McCord invented/formulated Protandim, it's obvious that it isn't the journalist's fault.

That said, the journalists and magazine editors need to do a better of job of not publishing articles that illegal promote products. When they do, they come off as advertisements disguised as news articles.

Originally posted 2013-06-22 22:00:43.

One of the common myths surrounding Protandim is that it was developed by a doctor.  It couldn't be more distant from the truth. It turns out that Paul Myhill invented Protandim. Here's the patent filed on March 23, 2005 with his name as the primary inventor.

It's worth noting that Paul Myhill has no background in medicine. Here is his LinkedIn page. I see theological study and business school, but nothing related to medicine.

If this seems odd it should. It is even odd to Paul Myhill. In an interview with Blogtalk radio, Paul Myhill, explains his invention of Protandim as well as the corporate cover-up of using Dr. McCord as a marketing tool. He specifically states:

Because the core composition came from a very unlikely source – me – we initially decided to hide that fact for marketing purposes and instead rely on the impeccable background of Dr. McCord.

What do I take away from this? I'll answer that question with a question. What if I told you that an African tribesman whose tribe was isolated from civilization for hundreds of years got plucked and put in a microchip lab at Intel and created a revolutionary chip with only some leaves, dirt, and bamboo. Would you'd believe it? Wouldn't you be skeptical at all? If you missed the analogy here goes... Paul Myhill is the isolated tribesman with no experience or training and the leaves, dirt, and bamboo are the common herbs in Protandim.

A potential Protandim consumer should be wary of products claiming to have medical merit from someone with no medical background. They should also think twice about trusting a company that has admitted to lying to consumers.

Originally posted 2011-05-14 21:05:58.

I was just having a discussion on a blog with a Protandim distributor and the distributor claimed that it helped him with his medical condition. I pointed out that such statements are not only against the LifeVantage Policies and Procedures, but they are also against the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and Federal Trade Commission Act.

To back-up my claim I referenced Section 8.11.2 of LifeVantage's Policies and Procedures (PDF). In reading this section I found something interesting that I hadn't noticed before... a second paragraph. I don't know if it's new or if it has been there all along, but here it is:

"8.11.2 – Product Claims
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.

An Independent Distributor that provides a product experience testimonial in any medium should use care to disclose their affiliation with LifeVantage ('LifeVantage Independent Distributor'), be honest in their testimonial personal experience, and assert that they are not claiming that their experience is the typical result experienced by consumers."

The first paragraph seems to prohibit any and all health claims that one can say to have experienced. Why? Because to my knowledge there are no claims in the official LifeVantage materials. The claims that I have seen in the LifeVantage materials relate to oxidative stress. However, a person can not relate to others their personal experience of feeling less oxidative stress - it's an imperceptible reaction within the body. No one has the feeling that their oxidative stress levels are high or low like they would with say, blood sugar as an example. (It should go without saying that what most people mean by "stress" is very different than "oxidative stress." I'll put it in writing for those who confuse the two.)

The second paragraph seems to leave it open for distributors to make personal experience testimonials if they are honest and as long as it is disclosed that their experience is not the typical result experienced by consumers.

There are a couple of problems here:

1. Given the groundwork that was laid down in the first paragraph, I can't picture a scenario where the second paragraph would ever come into play. The first paragraph essentially eliminates all personal testimonies making the second paragraph irrelevant.
2. A distributor may believe they are being honest about their personal testimony, but due to the nature of Protandim being a health product and a pill in particular the placebo effect is very likely the cause. Thus the distributor making the claim may be lying without knowing it. The distributor can't know what is true results or placebo effect. This would mean that the distributor can not be honest in their assessment in most claims.

It seems like LifeVantage is taking a cue from George Orwell's 1984 and using DoubleThink to control the thoughts of its distributors. Here's that definition from Wikipedia:

"Doublethink, a word coined by George Orwell in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, describes the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts."

Here is the quote from Orwell's 1984 itself:

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

That paragraph matches up well with everything related to LifeVantage.

Update: It seems that LifeVantage Actually Encourages Distributors to Break the FTC Endorsement Guidelines.

Originally posted 2011-09-09 19:27:13.

I was just browsing the FTC's website on Scams and Frauds and I saw this page about Miracle Cures.

A few quotes stood out with regard to LifeVantage Protandim. The first was this one:

"Miracle products claim to cure serious conditions — often conditions that science has no cure for, like arthritis, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, cancer, and HIV-AIDS. Some products even claim to be a 'cure-all' for several diseases and a host of symptoms. Often, the ads claim the products come with money-back guarantees. Unfortunately, these products, devices, and treatments often are unproven and useless, making promises they can’t fulfill."

I have seen many LifeVantage distributors make claims that Protandim has helped them with a variety of conditions. Nancy Leavitt's skin cancer claims is one shining example from the above list of conditions. This is a good time to focus on the last line "unproven and useless, making promises they can’t fulfill."

Here are a few other quotes that I found interesting:

"The reality is that phony miracle products can have dangerous interactions with medicines you’re already taking. They also might cause you to delay or stop medical treatment for your condition... It can indicate that a scammer is planning to take your money and close up shop.

Products that claim to do it all often do none of it. So even though you want to believe them, be skeptical, and avoid products that..."

We'll get to the rest of that quote in a bit. I wanted to point out the issue that the FTC says about causing people to delay or stop medical treatment. Nancy Leavitt's admitted to delaying her skin cancer treatment specifically because of Protandim. Also it is worth pointing out the company uses the term "scammer." Finally, they make a great point that "products that claim to do it often do none of it." I couldn't have said it better myself.

Now allow me to finish up the quote of what products you should avoid:

"are promoted with phrases like “scientific breakthrough,” “ancient remedy,” or “miraculous cure,” or scientific-sounding terms like 'thermogenesis'"

I can think of a product that is promoted as a "scientific breakthrough." I mentioned it back in my article, "LifeVantage and Dr. Joe McCord Lie about the Creation of Protandim?." It turns out that LifeVantage promotes its Protandim product with this exact phrase:

As of this writing, you can still see the proof at LifeVantage.com.

Originally posted 2011-05-17 03:20:28.

This article is from a comment left by Vogel. I've done some light editing for clarity and presentation purposes and the title is borrowed from the article.

I just found an old TV spot featuring David Perlmutter and David Brown making deceptive and illegal claims about Protandim. In this video, posted to YouTube in 2010, Perlmutter makes various promotional claims about Protandim but fails to reveal that he has a financial connection with the company. The highly promotional video shows the logo for XETV/CW 6 News and features one of the station's weekend weathercaster (of all people), Brooke Landau, but it's not clear that this spot was actually ever aired. Below are a few choice excerpts.

1:00 – Perlmutter: "I’m kind of honored to be working with really high level scientists who put together a non-prescription supplement..."

In fact, high level scientists didn't put Protandim together. It was put together by Paul Myhill, who has no credentials whatsoever in any scientific field.

At 2:20, Perlmutter deceptively refers to Protandim as a "powerful treatment", in violation of US law. In fact, Protandim has never been shown to be a treatment, powerful or otherwise, for anything.

At 2:35, Brooke Landau introduces David Brown claiming that he can help people with neurological disorders. At 3:15 Brown claims that Protandim was developed at University of Colorado Medical School (it wasn't, it was developed by Paul Myhill at his desk)

At 3:28, Landau says "it can help with things like MS (multiple sclerosis); I understand Montel Williams who suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years -- even he takes Protandim as well and it’s helped him, is that right”?"

Brown: "That’s right...he’s a distributor of ours; he’s not a paid endorser".

This is an outright lie. A 2007 company press release announced that Williams was in fact signed on by LifeVantage to be a paid endorser of Protandim: Montel Williams and LifeVantage Corporation Sign License Agreement to Promote Science-Based Dietary Supplement Products

Incidentally, Perlmutter is a quack who promotes discredited procedures like glutathione therapy for Parkinson’s patients, and his newsletter is listed as non-recommended and unscientific by Quackwatch

As for Brown, this is not the first example of dishonesty that we've documented. He has been complicit in deceptively promoting Protandim on several other occasions.

This website has already covered Dr. Joe McCord’s Financial Interest In LifeVantage/Protandim, which was estimated to be worth dozens of millions of dollars picked up some extra money on the way out. However, it's the agreement that he signed that could raise some eyebrows.

According to the 8-K disclosure, the agreement will mean LifeVantage will give "twelve (12) equal monthly payments to Dr. McCord in the aggregate amount of $1,700,000." That's a lot of money, but the agreement that McCord made to get the money is perhaps more interesting:

"The Agreement contains provisions relating to, among other things, confidentiality, non-disparagement, return of company property, and a general release of claims in favor of our company."

What kind of confidentiality does LifeVantage need from McCord? It's not like Protandim has changed its formulation or that it is any kind of secret. If LifeVantage is running a strong organization that isn't a scam, why would they need to put McCord under a non-disparagement agreement?

One person close to me read this and suggested that this looks like hush money.

It was noted that in this 10-K filing with the SEC that McCord was making $10,000 a month ($120,000 a year) plus $0.50 for every bottle of Protandim sold as of June 2011 (his salary may have been updated since then). Getting $1.7 million is certainly a good amount of money compared to that base salary.

The other interesting thing in that 10-K is the termination clause:

"Termination. Either party may terminate the employment agreement without cause upon 180 days notice to the other party. If a party commits a breach of a material provision of the employment then the agreement can be terminated by the other party for cause. If the Company were to terminate the agreement for cause then Dr. McCord shall be not entitled to any further compensation after the date of termination."

LifeVantage was under no obligation to give McCord 1.7M on the way out. In my opinion, it is suspicious, especially considering Dr. Joe McCord’s Financial Interest In LifeVantage/Protandim. Is it possible that the heat from the lying about Protandim got to LifeVantage and they decided it was best to part ways with him? They had already tried to give the New LifeVantage Chief Science Officer job to Darlene Walley, but she didn't last long at the position. Maybe the money was some kind of golden parachute to get him out?

Originally posted 2013-07-02 01:31:42.

I was in a discussion about LifeVantage Protandim and a distributor made a claim that as a public company shareholders are looking for stability and thus the CEO wouldn't choose a model that would fail. The same distributor earlier made a claim that if Steve Jobs of Apple showed you his computer in his garage in the 1980's wouldn't you want to be a part of it?

This lead me in the direction of looking at the history of the LifeVantage CEOs. After all, if the company's product is revolutionary and one were seriously making comparisons to comparison, no one would leave the company... least of all the CEO.

So it was with little surprise that I saw LifeVantage's history littered with a number of CEOs:

Using the great information provided by TonyC, I was able to compile a list of LifeVantage CEOs from July, 2005 - August, 2007:

• 7/1/2005 - Lifeline Therapeutics, Inc. president and CEO Bill Driscoll resigns.
• 11/28/2005 - Lifeline Therapeutics, Inc. announces Stephen K. Onody as CEO
• 11/30/2006 - Stephen K. Onody tenders his resignation as CEO of Lifevantage Corporation.
• 12/21/2006 - James J. Krejci becomes CEO of LifeVantage
• 8/30/2007 - LifeVantage CEO James J. Krejci's employment "ended."
• 8/31/2007 - James J. Krejci resigns from the board of directors of LifeVantage.

At that point, things became a bit fuzzy. TonyC's history started to drop off a bit. LifeVantage seems to purposely ignore all company history before their press releases before February 2008. Fortunately the Denver Business Journal helped out with an article on January, 14th, 2008:

Since September, LifeVantage has been headed by Gene Copeland as interim chief operating officer. He took over after John Van Heuvelen served a stint as interim CEO following the resignation in November 2006 of Stephen Onody as CEO after a year on the job.

With this information I was able to look up the names mentioned and found out the following somewhat conflicting information:

• John Van Heuvelen took over as interim CEO in December 16, 2006.. Using the above information about LifeVantage hiring Krejci as CEO, John Van Heuvelen's reign of CEO seems to be a quick 5 days.
• Gene Copeland assumed control as Chief Operating Officer in September, 2007. It looks like he takes over from Krejci and lasts 3 months until...
• ... David W Brown became CEO in January of 2008
• LifeVantage announced in January of 2011 that it is looking for a new CEO.

Here are some comments along the way:

• Stephen K. Onody stayed at LifeVantage for just two days more than his one-year anniversary. Typically this happens when someone wants to get out, but is waiting for stock options to invest.
• John Van Heuvelen apparent CEO run of 5 days isn't a sign of a company that is looking to show shareholders longevity.
• Gene Copeland's 3 month run as CEO could be characterized in the same way

Logic would dictate that if a company has a breakthrough product and their CEO believes it, he would stick around. It looks to me that in 6 years, LifeVantage has had 6 CEOs... and they are looking for their 7th.

As with all posts, I welcome any thoughts and/or corrections to this information.

Originally posted 2011-05-31 04:18:15.

Remember the big press release about Darlene Walley being the New LifeVantage Chief Science Officer? Well that didn't last long. Seeking Alpha has their 3rd quarter, 2013 conference call with the following:

"Jim Galloway – Galloway Enterprises: Hi, Doug. You were just talking about new products and science and everything. There were enthusiastic comments about the new Chief Science Officer when she joined the company last fall, but no mention of the fact she departed after over – only several months. What transpired, and how is the lack of a Chief Science Officer affecting the company? And what’s the job description of the Chief Science Officer and the budget for that department?

Doug Robinson: Let me try to hit all of your questions, Jim. You’re absolutely right. We made an announcement last October for a start date in November of a new Chief Science Officer. And after only five months or so, it was determined, really, by our Chief Science Officer, that she’d like to go back and pursue consulting, which is the world that she came from before she joined us. And so we honored that resignation and we parted ways."

There are at least four interesting things about this:

1. LifeVantage didn't deem the Chief Science Officer important enough to talk about until they were asked about it specifically. With the press release about her showing up, why was there no official recognition that she left?

2. Would it surprise anyone if the requirements for the position required making misrepresentations about the product as it appears Joe McCord did such as LifeVantage and Dr. Joe McCord Lied about the Creation of Protandim! and Joe McCord Illegally Says that Protandim is about Cancer Prevention?

3. The LifeVantage Chief Science Officer pays very, very well as we know from Dr. Joe McCord’s Financial Interest In LifeVantage/Protandim. Seems like it must have been a pretty tough gig to throw all that money away.

4. Despite spending 5 months at the position according to LifeVantage, the gig wasn't important enough to her to make her LinkedIn page (as of this writing).

Originally posted 2013-07-02 22:57:55.

Some say you can judge an organization by its leadership. If that's the case, those interested in LifeVantage Protandim should take a look at Pro 10 Distributor Nancy Leavitt's illegal testimonial about the product she sells and skin cancer. Here it is on YouTube:

[Note: Mrs. Leavitt's lawyer sent me a DMCA take-down notice for alleged copyright infringement for embedding this video from YouTube.com. I have sent a DMCA counter-notice that the lawyer must initiate legal action against me and settle this in a court of law. It is my understanding that the lawyer must file law suit against me within 10-14 days. That 10-14 day has expired and I have not been notified of any lawsuit. Thus, I'm going to restore the embedded video from YouTube as the feature was designed by Google for the ease of use of the reader.

I apologize for any past inconvenience caused by Mrs. Leavitt and her lawyer. Considering the video's content, I can understand why Nancy Leavitt would want to make it more difficult for you to view it.]

As with all YouTube videos they can be taken down by their respective owners. I suspect the above video will be taken down soon. In the event that happens I made a copy for my records. In fact, there's a note at the bottom of the comments from Matt Leavitt asking that it be removed 9 months ago. That alone should be a major red flag that this product is being marketed illegally. However as it stands on May 31, 2011, this video, that was submitted on February 9th, 2010, has over 4400 page views.

In the video you'll find Nancy Leavitt saying the following:

- 0:13 - "The most important thing to know is that this product works 100% of the time. It's proven, it's documented and it's measurable."
- 0:41 - "I had real achy joints from teaching aerobics for so many years and after just a few weeks of using Protandim that subsided immediately."
- 0:51 - "I was also using some anxiety medication and I noticed all of my symptoms from anxiety started going away..."
- 1:02 - "I no longer struggle with ADD and joint pain is gone."
- 1:10 - "The most profound thing that happened to me, besides having more energy and better sleep... what was really miraculous to me... I've suffered and struggle with skin cancer for years."
- 2:05 - "I was using Protandim and also TrueScience and I've been using the product for 6 weeks and I wanted to wait to have the surgery done because #1 it is obviously expensive and causes different scars and such... after 6 weeks the using Protandim and TrueScience the two spots on my forehead disappeared and the spot on my leg completely disappeared as well. The symptoms of skin cancer... totally gone... it was just a miraculous thing for me."

Nancy Leavitt doesn't waste much time stressing the "most important thing" that the "product works 100% of the time." She fails to define what working is in that statement, but says that it's "proven", "documented", and "measurable".... three things that are impossible to apply to something is only generally defined as "works."

Nancy Leavitt then goes into litany of medical conditions that Protandim has cured as I showed above. With those medical cure condition claims in mind, let's review LifeVantage distributor policies and procedures:

"8.11.2 – Product Claims

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."

So there is the evidence that the very top people in LifeVantage break LifeVantage's own rules. As LifeVantage mentions they potentially violate the FDA and FTC's policies. The FTC has released the following guidelines on such testimonies:

• Endorsements must be truthful and not misleading;
• If the advertiser doesn’t have proof that the endorser’s experience represents what consumers will achieve by using the product, the ad must clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected results in the depicted circumstances; and
• If there’s a connection between the endorser and the marketer of the product that would affect how people evaluate the endorsement, it should be disclosed.

This video violates at least the two points. She didn't disclose that she is a paid LifeVantage distributor in the video. She also does not disclose that her results are different from the "generally expected results." It is hard to judge the first own without medical proof. In addition, we already covered how how the FTC feels about the claims Nancy Leavitt made. Specifically that article mentioned:

• products that "claim to be a ‘cure-all’ for several diseases... often are unproven and useless, making promises they can’t fulfill."
• "The reality is that phony miracle products can have dangerous interactions with medicines you’re already taking. They also might cause you to delay or stop medical treatment for your condition…"
• products you should avoid “are promoted with phrases like 'scientific breakthrough,' 'ancient remedy,' or 'miraculous cure,' or scientific-sounding terms like 'thermogenesis'"

So we have Nancy Leavitt hitting all the major points of what the FTC is a scam and fraud. In regard to bullet point #1 above, she definitely calls it a cure-all (works 100%) for several conditions. In regard to bullet point #2 above, she admitted that it stopped her from treating her medical condition (skin cancer). Finally, In regard to bullet point #3 above, we have her claiming twice that Protandim was "miraculous."

A related article notes that MonaVie, another MLM, and their lawyers have made it a point to warn that these claims violate the FTC rules: MonaVie, FTC Guidelines, and Distributor Testimonies.

I haven't even touched the FDA violations here. I'll let someone in the comments get that ball rolling.

Originally posted 2011-05-31 22:13:03.

It has come to my attention from Dr. Harriett Hall's article on Protandim (via Protandim Watch) that LifeVantage second patent application may break the FDA's law. The part that I'm looking at is the following quote on page 28 of the patent application:

"The compositions of the present invention are useful to prevent or treat the following disorders and diseases: memory loss; Parkinson’s disease; aging; toxin-induced hepatotoxicity, inflammation; liver cirrhosis; chronic hepatitis; and diabetes due to cirrhosis; indigestion; fatigue; stress; cough; infertility; tissue inflammation; cancer; anxiety disorders; panic attacks; rheumatism; pain; manic depression; alcoholic paranoia; schizophrenia; fever; insomnia; infertility; aging; skin inflammations and disorders; alcoholism; anemia; carbuncles; convalescence; emaciation; HIV; AIDS; immune system problems; lumbago; multiple sclerosis; muscle energy loss; paralysis; swollen glands; ulcers; breathing difficulties; inflammation; psoriasis; cancer (e.g.; prostate cancer, lung cancer and breast cancer); pain; cardiovascular disease (e.g.; arteriosclerosis and atherosclerosis); ischemia/reperfusion injury; anxiety; attention deficit disorder; leprosy; arthritis (e.g., psoriatic arthritis; ankylosing spondylitis; and rheumatoid arthritis); hemorrhoids; tuberculosis; high blood pressure; congestive heart failure; venous insufficiency (pooling of blood in the veins; usually in the legs); sore throat; hepatitis; syphilis; stomach ulcers; epilepsy; diarrhea; asthma; burns; piles; sunburn; wrinkles; headache; insect bites; cuts; ulcers; sores; herpes; jaundice; bursitis; canker sores; sore gums; poison ivy; gastritis; high cholesterol; heart disease; bacterial infection; viral infection; acne; aging; immune disorders; dental caries; periodontitis; halitosis; dandruff; cardiovascular disease (e.g., hypertension; thrombosis; arteriosclerosis); migraine headaches; diabetes; elevated blood glucose; diseases of the alimentary canal and respiratory system; age-related physical and mental deterioration (e.g., Alzheimer’s Disease and age-related dementia); cardiovascular disease; cerebral vascular insufficiency and impaired cerebral performance; congestive symptoms of premenstrual syndrome; allergies; age-related vision loss; depression; Raynaud’s disease; peripheral vascular disease; intermittent claudication; vertigo; equilibrium disorder; prevention of altitude sickness; tinnitus (ringing in the ear); liver fibrosis; macular degeneration; asthma; graft rejection; and immune disorders that induce toxic shock; bronchpulmonary disease as cystic fibrosis; chronic bronchitis; gastritis; heart attack; angina pectoris; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; kidney damage during coronary angiography; Unverricht-Lundborg disease; pseudoporphyria; pneumonia; and paracetamol hepatotoxicity."

This immediately reminds me of the quote from the FTC warning about scams that I referenced here: Protandim, Miracle Claims, Scientific Breakthroughs, and the FTC:

"Miracle products claim to cure serious conditions — often conditions that science has no cure for, like arthritis, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, cancer, and HIV-AIDS. Some products even claim to be a ‘cure-all’ for several diseases and a host of symptoms. Often, the ads claim the products come with money-back guarantees. Unfortunately, these products, devices, and treatments often are unproven and useless, making promises they can’t fulfill."

It appears that every single one of the conditions that the FTC warns about is in the list. Even more interesting is that several conditions such as cancer, gastritis, cardiovascular disease, asthma, infertility, and diabetes are listed more than once. The patent lists "aging" three times (Fountain of Youth, anyone?).

It is interesting to read "The compositions of the present invention are useful to prevent or treat the following disorders and diseases:" and then find on LifeVantage's own FAQ: "Protandim is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." Clearly LifeVantage is confused about the intentions of its own product. One has to ask the question why should consumers have any trust in LifeVantage or Protandim when the company clearly doesn't know what their own product is intended to do?

Where does this patent perhaps break the law? Well section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B) says that drug is defined as "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals." From the words in the patent, LifeVantage views Protandim to fit the FDA's definition of being a "drug."

However, for such claims to be made, the product itself must be approved by the FDA through a process called the New Drug Application (NDA). To the best of my knowledge (and any doubters feel free to prove otherwise), LifeVantage has NOT filed with the FDA to classify Protandim as drug.

It seems one could view this patent application as violating the FDA's laws regarding dietary supplements (which is what Protandim is classified as).

Originally posted 2011-06-18 21:22:03.

One of the more interesting things about LifeVantage is its history. If you look at the LifeVantage website, the press releases start in 2008. What is interesting about this is that it whitewashes the company's history. LifeVantage doesn't mention that the company used to be called Lifeline.

Lifeline was famous for attempting to bring a product called CMX-1152 to market. It was developed by a company called CereMedix. Why is this notable? Well CMX-1152 was to be called Protandim and it just happens to do what Protandim claims to do today. Back in 2003 Lifeline issued a press release that it "attained the perpetual, exclusive, worldwide rights to an innovative oral supplement being heralded as the first real hope in the battle against oxidative stress."

I'm going to go out on a limb and presume perpetual, exclusive, worldwide licenses for innovative things are expensive, very expensive.

Everything was going well, except that years later the deal fell through. This article from The Scientist tells the story:

"According to a representative of Ceremedix who preferred to remain anonymous, Lifeline began calling CMX-1152 'Protandim,' although it is unclear who suggested the name. After the deal between the companies fell apart (for unknown reasons) Ceremedix dropped CMX-1152, and began concentrating on other therapeutic areas."

...

The Protandim that was introduced in February 2005 is a completely different formulation from 1152. Online searches bring up pages describing both. At one point, Lifeline filed a statement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, saying that 'several erroneous and misleading statements' were made in a Denver network broadcast, and Protandim 'is in no way comprised of, or related to, Ceremedix's peptide.' Company representatives from Lifeline did not return requests for comment."

As the article points out, neither company has been forthcoming about the deal fell apart between the companies. It is worth noting that CMX-1152 isn't available today. Perhaps in further clinical testing it proved to be ineffective. That seems to be the only reason I can think of why it wouldn't be on the market in some capacity.

The educated reader probably has two thoughts at this point:

• With what would appear to be a lot of money invested in the licensing of CMX-1152, a smart financial move for the company would be to find a product it can sell.
• With years of mentioning Protandim in press releases building up the anticipation of the product, the company would benefit the most by producing a product to capitalize on the Protandim brand.

The ideal solution to this problem would be to create another product that has the same "innovative" and "break-through" benefits (words from the Lifeline press release mentioned above) of CMX-1152. The odds of being able to create such a product would clearly be astronomical since no one else has been able to do it previously. Based on the article in The Scientist, Lifeline was able to do it in just a few months. To make the odds even longer, Lifeline relied on Paul Myhill who had no medical background.

The history of Protandim should cause the wise consumer to wait until the company proves the product effective via clinical large scale, placebo-controlled, human trials and FDA approval.

Originally posted 2011-06-19 22:17:59.

It's come to my attention that Montel Williams appears to be breaking the law according to the FTC and the FDA. How so? Well I watched this video on YouTube:

Here are some of the points that I found interesting:

• Montel mentions going Against Medical Advice (AMA) at around 2:20 and 3:25. The paid endorser for LifeVantage is suggesting that doctors, who have spent most of their lives studying how to help people with their medical conditions, shouldn't be listened to. This is extremely dangerous information to spread and it's irresponsible for Mr. Williams who claims at 3:33 that there are a lot of people who rely on him.
• At the 4:10 point in the video, Montel Williams claims to have seen some of the best MS doctors and that he's still dealing with the same issues. Montel, this isn't rocket science, simply read what the NIH says about MS treatment. It's pretty straight-forward (and there's no mention of Protandim anywhere there).
• At the 6:15 mark Montel Williams says, "This isn't a double-blind study, this isn't a clinical study" and then claims that Protandim helped him with symptoms of MS. This is explicitly against the LifeVantage Policy and Procedures (see third bullet point below) and LifeVantage is not only condoning it, but paying a celebrity endorser to do it.
• From 8:30 to 8:50 Montel Williams he clearly credits Protandim as having a therapeutic effect that can only be claimed from drugs as defined by the FDA (see the 4th bullet point below).

Allow me to make a few points about the video that are not explicitly mentioned:

• Montel Williams is a distributor of LifeVantage according to this LifeVantage press release. It's also likely that he was paid speaking fees for this appearance as most celebrities are, but neither party is discloses such information as best I can tell.
• No claims of any LifeVantage products, including Protandim, may be made about its ability to aid in any disease according to LifeVantage's Policies and Procedures (PDF) set forth by their compliance department:
  

  "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."

• The above quote by LifeVantage mentioned that such claims may violate the FDA's Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The FDA is quite busy and very underfunded with the government deficient, but it does crack down on violations when it comes across them. One example is this letter to MonaVie distributor Kevin Vokes (PDF). A relevant portion of that is:
  

  "This is to advise you that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reviewed your web site at the Internet address http://www.acai-berry.com and has determined that your products “MonaVie Original,” “MonaVie Active,” “MonaVie Combo,” and “MonaVie Gel” are promoted for conditions that cause the products to be drugs under section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)]. The therapeutic claims on your web site establish that the products are drugs because they are intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease. The marketing of these products with these claims violates the Act."

• The FTC has released it's own guidelines on endorsements, which clearly this is. According to the FTC:
  

  • Endorsements must be truthful and not misleading;
  • If the advertiser doesn’t have proof that the endorser’s experience represents what consumers will achieve by using the product, the ad must clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected results in the depicted circumstances; and
  • If there’s a connection between the endorser and the marketer of the product that would affect how people evaluate the endorsement, it should be disclosed."

  We have no way of determining the truth of Montel Williams' claims, but we do know that the FTC specifically mentions multiple sclerosis (MS) as one of those product that are targeted by miracle cures and that "Unfortunately, these products, devices, and treatments often are unproven and useless, making promises they can’t fulfill." In other words, the FTC indirectly has already claimed that it is not possible for Montel Williams to have told the truth.

  The advertiser, LifeVantage in this case, doesn't have proof that the endorser's (Montel Williams) experience represents what consumers will achieve by using the product. This video does not disclose the generally expected results... such as the product doesn't aid with any medical condition.

  Finally the connection between the endorser (Montel Williams) and the marketer (LifeVantage) doesn't seem to be disclosed in the video. However, LifeVantage deserves some credit for having disclosed the connection in a press release more than two years ago.

It looks to me that clearly Montel Williams is not only breaking LifeVantage's Policy and Procedures, but he's also breaking the FTC endorsement guidelines, as well as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Update: It seems like he's willing to credit anything that is willing to put money in his product. Now he's crediting medical marijuana for his health:

“Prescription drugs nearly shut down my kidneys. Then a doctor suggested I try medical marijuana,” said Williams, who credits pot for improving his health and well-being.

Originally posted 2011-07-08 00:43:19.

[The following is a guest post from Vogel...]

Another knee-slapper regarding Protandim’s laughable research. Watch as the story unfolds…

Three of the published articles on Protandim (2 studies on skin cancer in mice, and one review article on the same topic) featured someone named Delira Robbins as an author.

1. Robbins D, Zhao Y. The role of manganese superoxide dismutase in skin cancer. Enzyme Res. 2011;2011:409295. Epub 2011 Mar 23.
2. Robbins D, Gu X, Shi R, Liu J, Wang F, Ponville J, McCord JM, Zhao Y. The chemopreventive effects of Protandim: modulation of p53 mitochondrial translocation and apoptosis during skin carcinogenesis. PLoS One. 2010 Jul 30;5(7):e11902.
3. Liu J, Gu X, Robbins D, Li G, Shi R, McCord JM, Zhao Y. Protandim, a fundamentally new antioxidant approach in chemoprevention using mouse two-stage skin carcinogenesis as a model. PLoS One. 2009;4(4):e5284.

[Note: Here’s a video of McCord hyping up 2 of these studies at a Protandim distributor meeting.]

The most recent Protandim publication, featuring Robbins as primary author, was a review article (not actual research) on skin cancer, in which the product was hyped as a potential remedy. This study was leveraged by LFVN, who used it as PR fodder, blasting the news about the study in a corporate press release earlier this year.

In September 2010, LFVN also sent out a corporate PR blast about one of Robbins’ other studies (the one published in the crap online pseudo-journal PLoSOne), in which the company claimed that the study was funded by Louisiana State University.

Now here’s the punch-line. Delira Robbins is a grad student whose highest degree certification to date is a Bachelors of Science.

So in other words, this so-called expert who wrote this allegedly epic review article on Protandim and skin cancer, and authored/executed those 2 allegedly earth-shattering studies in mice, is a non-expert; she’s a simple science grad student at Louisiana State U with no legitimate expert credentials.

My strong hunch is that Delira Robbins' doctoral research, which appears to be focused solely on Protandim, is being funded by LFVN, either directly from a stipend or indirectly through funds paid to her supervisor Yunfeng Zhao.

Interestingly, I saw a couple of job ads that Zhao had recently posted for postdoctoral research fellows. (Notice how poor the salary is - sad.)

I checked the NIH grant database and it shows that no grants were awarded to Zhao, so I wonder where he’s getting the money to hire a post-doc, and whether that post-doc will be relegated to conjuring up more BS to feed LFVN’s PR spin doctors.

[Editor's Conclusion: This seems to be sound research and backs up what Protandim Inventor Paul Myhill said about encouraging research]

Originally posted 2011-08-23 04:32:00.

I just received an email from LifeVantage Protandim distributor Peter Davidson. It asked me to go to gotoabcnews.com to learn about something that "could make a significant difference" in my life.

In going to that website, it was big advertisement for Protandim. Clearly a LifeVantage distributor registered the domain with the intention capitalizing on ABC News' trademark for their own business purposes. Clearly this wasn't a website registered by ABC News for their own purposes. The website isn't used for the purpose of discussing ABC News or any other legit use. According to GoDaddy that seems to be Mike Garrard of Macy, Indiana.

It's disappointing, but hardly suprising, that LifeVantage can't keep its distributors from breaking spam law and trademark laws.

Originally posted 2011-09-06 02:08:08.

[This article is intended to serve as a summary of other articles available on this site. Comments can be left on those other articles.]

LifeVantage makes a big deal about Dr. Joe McCord. However a little research shows this is unwarranted.

For example, LifeVantage lied about Joe McCord inventing Protandim. The true inventor of Protandim is Paul Myhill who has no background in science. Paul Myhill admits the following in an interview with Blogtalk radio:

"Because the core composition came from a very unlikely source – me – we initially decided to hide that fact for marketing purposes and instead rely on the impeccable background of Dr. McCord."

Having said that, it's worth asking who much Dr. Joe McCord was paid to be part of the deception. A look into the company's SEC files shows that Dr. Joe McCord’s Financial Interest In LifeVantage/Protandim is significant which included a 10% ownership in the company when he signed on in 2004, worth millions. Since then he's been granted over a million stock options meaning that he can gain millions more if the company performs well.

In this sense, Dr. Joe McCord is acting as a celebrity endorser, which is best summed up in this Dave Chappelle short comedy bit (note: minor adult language):

Originally posted 2011-09-10 00:27:10.

I was just mentioning how LiveVantage’s Policies and Procedures contradicts itself to a friend. She made an additional point that I missed. As of September 13, 2011, Section 8.11.2 of LifeVantage's Policies and Procedures (PDF) reads:

"An Independent Distributor that provides a product experience testimonial in any medium should use care to disclose their affiliation with LifeVantage ('LifeVantage Independent Distributor'), be honest in their testimonial personal experience, and assert that they are not claiming that their experience is the typical result experienced by consumers."

On the surface this sounds pretty responsible. However, as was previously pointed out in the aforementioned article, is no typical result experienced by consumers so Independent Distributors can make no claims.

What I had missed, though, is that the Independent Distributor can't even make the claim WHILE disclosing that it is not typical. The FTC's Endorsement Guidelines read:

"Example 1: A brochure for a baldness treatment consists entirely of testimonials from satisfied customers who say that after using the product, they had amazing hair growth and their hair is as thick and strong as it was when they were teenagers. The advertiser must have competent and reliable scientific evidence that its product is effective in producing
new hair growth.

The ad will also likely communicate that the endorsers’ experiences are representative of what new users of the product can generally expect. Therefore, even if the advertiser includes a disclaimer such as, “Notice: These testimonials do not prove our product works. You should not expect to have similar results,” the ad is likely to be deceptive unless the advertiser has adequate substantiation that new users typically will experience results similar to those experienced by the testimonialists."

The FTC clarified this point in another FAQ about the Revised Guidelines with another example:

"In our ads we want to feature endorsements from consumers who achieved the best results with our product. Can we do that under the revised Guides?

Testimonials claiming specific results usually will be interpreted to mean that the endorser’s experience is what others can expect. Statements like “Results not typical” or “Individual results may vary” won’t change that interpretation. That leaves advertisers with two choices:

• Have adequate proof to back up the claim that the results shown in the ad are typical, or
• Clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected performance in the circumstances shown in the ad

How would this principle apply in a real ad?

The revised Guides include a lot of examples with practical advice for marketers. Suppose an ad features an endorsement from 'Mary G.' who says, 'I lost 50 pounds in 6 months with WeightAway.' This ad likely conveys that Mary G.'s experience is typical of what consumers will achieve by using the product. If consumers can’t expect to get those results, the ad likely would mislead consumers unless it makes clear what consumers can expect to lose in similar circumstances – for example, 'Most women who use WeightAway for six months lose at least 15 pounds.'"

By suggesting that Independent Distributors disclose that the results aren't typical ignores the FTC Guidelines that they either need to be able to back up the claim with adequate proof (which doesn't exist for any Protandim claim on humans) or that they disclose the general expected performance (which is no expected change for the customer of the product).

In other words, it seems every conceivable testimony for Protandim would be considered deceptive by the FTC. LifeVantage, instead of recognizing this and making distributors aware of these guidelines, hides behind the inadequate and antiquated notion of telling distributors to say, "results not typical." That's no longer sufficient according to the FTC.

Originally posted 2011-09-13 23:01:41.

Lifevantage distributors have been using a ABC Primetime video fro m 2005 as their primary marketing tool for at least 8 years now. I've been told that ABC has stopped LifeVantage from using it on its website. I haven't been able to verify this (it would be private a conversation between ABC and LifeVantage), but it makes sense as you won't see it there. Instead you see distributors spreading it on YouTube and coaching people to use it as a sales tool.

They often don't mention the details that one should consider. Here are a pile of them.

1. It is not disclosed that McCord makes millions from promoting the product. It would have been very easy for ABC PrimeTime to look up and realize that McCord declared himself at least a 10% owner in the company back in 2004. This financial relationship is not disclosed.

2. TBARS are measured, but the test was not run by an independent lab. It was run by McCord, which is particular important due to the financial bias and the fact that there is prior evidence of data rigging in the Protandim human clinical trial.

3. TBAR levels can be influenced by exercise, the placebo effect, or even drinking a glass of juice or taking a vitamin supplement. That's why TBARS is an unreliable test of oxidative stress.

4. Lowered TBAR levels have not been shown to result in any health benefit, and is not a definitive measurement of oxidative stress.

5. ABC has never done a follow-up piece. They also haven't reran the original piece to the best of my knowledge. If they were really the first to report this “fountain of youth,” breakthrough product they would be crowing about it reminding us during commercials of Dancing with the Stars that it's coverage beats the other networks. Instead they appear to have stopped LifeVantage from spreading it tacitly admitting that it was sub-par work.

6. You would think a “medical breakthrough” would be getting front page news and not need to rely on a video from 8 years ago. Why hasn't USA Today, Time, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. covered it?

At the end of the day, a smart consumer needs to realize that news outlets put together these puff pieces all the time. Why? Because people enjoy them and its good for ratings. You've seen it before with acai, resveratrol, garlic, hoodia, etc. ABC may have thought they were getting in early on a trend in 2005, but the other news organizations knew better and stayed away.

Furthermore, at the time ABC didn't know that LifeVantage and Dr. Joe McCord were Lying about the Creation of Protandim. They also didn't know that McCord would illegally say that Protandim is about cancer prevention. Back in 2005, Protandim was just being put together and this information simply wasn't known or in the last example, hadn't happened.

If anyone is pitching you an ABC video from 2005, tell then you have a Palm Treo smartphone to sell them. After it does the web!

Many thanks to Lisarob for putting together many of the points in this article.

Originally posted 2013-09-04 17:12:50.

Many have noted that Dr. Dan Royal's past has been ugly. That ugly past is too long for me to recap there, so I suggest you click on the above link and read it.

Now Dan Royal is looking to pull off a new scam. A scam within a scam. How is he looking to do this? Through a LifeVantage Challenge. Let

Here's how it works. Let's see if you can spot the scam:

1. Go to the website: www.royalmedicalclinic.com
2. Fill out patient forms (below) and either fax to (702) 938-5844 or scan and email to droyal@royalmedicalclinic.com:

   a) LFVN Nutritional Assessment;
   b) Patient Information; and
   c) Patient History.

3. Pay Administrative Fee of $100 for Nutritional Assessment or Homeopathic Consultation to Royal Medical Group (“RMG”) by credit card or PayPal, calling (702) 938-5055, faxing (702) 938-5844 or emailing: droyal@royalmedicalclinic.com.
4. Get blood test for MicroNutrient Test:

   a) Physician orders test from SpectraCell;
   b) Test kit is shipped to participant;
   c) Participant has blood drawn and sample shipped to SpectraCell;
   a. Insurance patients must include insurance information and/or copy of their insurance card, along with co-pay of $160;
   and
   b. Cash patients must pay RMG $320 via credit card, PayPal, or check.
   d) Physician receives and reviews test results and provides a copy to participant.

   CIGNA, Medicaid, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield in TX, IL, OK, NM, SC and TN are not billable insurances and cash must be paid.

5. Take Protandim as prescribed by physician.

   a) Participant should obtain Protandim from LFVN Distributor; but
   b) If Participant does not have Distributor, he/she may purchase Protandim at: www.mylifevantage.com/royal.

6. Participant repeats blood test in 3-6 months or as recommended by Physician.

Here's the PDF outlining those instructions.

Did you catch it? Dan Royal collects the $100 administrative fee plus whatever commissions he gets from people buying the product in part 5b. That $100 doesn't sound like that much, does it? Well it also looks like those with insurance have to pay a $160 co-pay to Royal Medical Group and those without pay $320. If you read the summary of the his PowerPoint at LifeVantage Elite he's looking to get 1,000 people to take the test. That's $100,000 in his pocket in administrative fees, and around $160,000 in co-pays, plus the product commissions.

Who else wins in this? Well LifeVantage gets distributors to foot the bill for testing its product. If the test comes out good, they will certain trumpet it as a success. If it comes out to do nothing, it will likely never see the light of day and Dan Royal will quietly end the challenge. One thing is for sure, this test by using people who are likely distributors to begin with will be biased and subject to a very significant placebo effect.

Who is the loser in this? It is the poor victim of the scam, the distributors. It's unlikely that health insurance is going to consider one nutritional assessment a good use of their money, much less two in a 3-6 month span. They are much more likely to suggest that you buy a cheap multivitamin and kick you out of their office. So in reality, the distributor is looking at paying $640 for two tests, $100 for an administrative fee, $300 in 6 months - a total of over $1000. Why pay $1000 to prove that someone else's product works? LifeVantage should be footing the bill, not the distributors.

How else does the distributor lose in this? The distributor has to give up any claim to being a patient. Does your doctor make you do that? If so, I would hope you'd get a new doctor right away. Here's the agreement to participating in the program. It states:

"Guarantees: I acknowledge that RMG has not made any promises or guarantees to me regarding my medical condition(s) and that RMG’s assessment does not constitute a physician-patient relationship."

It doesn't end there. The agreement also requires that you go through binding arbitration instead of suing for damages:

"Arbitration: I agree that any claim or dispute arising out of this Agreement shall be subject to binding arbitration pursuant to the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and conducted by a single AAA arbitrator in Henderson, Nevada. In no event shall either party be entitled to punitive damages."

Finally the non-patient (I don't know what else to call the distributor signing this) receives all care through telephone or email.

"ROYAL MEDICAL GROUP...will perform either a telemedicine nutritional assessment or homeopathic consult via email and/or phone."

An email consultation... that seems to be what the $100 administrative fee gets you.

It seems odd to trust Dan Royal's expertise. In both documents he mentions that Protandim is prescribed by a physician. Next time you visit your doctor ask him to write a prescription for a Protandim and see what he says. Or perhaps if you find yourself at a drug store ask the pharmacists how many prescriptions for Protandim they fill each day.

In seriousness, please don't bother your doctor and pharmacists about Protandim. They are busy enough without having to deal with pranks designed to prove Dan Royal's ignorance.

Originally posted 2011-10-11 01:24:46.

[Update: It looks like Michelle Skaff has scrubbed her site clean. Seems like an admission of guilt.]

You would think that Michelle Skaff as a LifeVantage Pro 7 distributor and member of the LifeVantage Ownership Circle would know better, but then again this is one of the least surprising findings on this site. Michelle Skaff runs the website, Our Health and Abundance according to the GoDaddy Registry information.

Our Health and Abundance looks to be a repository of conflicting information. It's purpose is clearly to pitch Protandim with the tagline of "Featuring: Testimonials, Doctors, Vets and Pets for Protandim." It includes categories on the sidebar of diseases such as: Fibromyalgia, Multiple Sclerosis, Cancer, and Diabetes. However in small letters at the bottom of the page is the disclaimer, "*Products not intended to cure, treat or prevent disease*." This would seem to fall afoul of the FTC's endorsement guidelines where you can not suggest Protandim plays a role in disease and then in small letters negate the whole statement.

When you dig a little further you can see that there are a number of illegal claims on a Protandim testimonial page. There you can find Protandim distributor Don Wheat crediting Protandim helping his throat cancer and Protandim distributor Alithia Rutherford credit Protandim with helping with headaches (though the site categorizes the testimonial under Multiple Sclerosis as well as many other testimonies involving various diseases.

Michelle Skaff's own LinkedIn Page contains illegal claims about Protandim:

"Featured on ABC, NBC, PBS, and in Sanjay Gupta's book, Chasing Life, Protandim is proven to be a scientific breakthrough for our health based on it's ability to activate the powerful survival genes in our bodies that reduce aging, oxidation, inflammation and impact diseases like cancer, heart disease, diabetes and more. It has been researched by LSU, Harvard, Massachusetts General Hospital, University of Colorado and and other leading universities based on it's powerful ability to activate the survival genes within our cells, which are millions of times more powerful then what we might consume externally.. If you are serious about your health, learn about this product and science."

I bolded the parts where she illegally claims that Protandim does impact diseases. However it also worth pointing out that Harvard and MGH have not researched Protandim.

It is quite clear that Michelle Skaff is using testimonials to pitch Protandim as an aid to many, many diseases despite her own disclaimer and LifeVantage's that it isn't intended for such purposes. There's a word in the dictionary for this and it's called fraud.

Originally posted 2011-10-11 16:13:28.