Articles

Pursued by Protandim Proselytizers

I’m fed up! In August 2009 I wrote about Protandim, pointing out that it’s not supported by good evidence. I thought I had made myself clear; but apparently I had only made myself a target. True believers have deluged the Internet with attacks on my article, calling it mere “opinion,” ignoring its main points, and denigrating me personally. I have ignored the Internet attacks, but I’m beginning to feel personally harassed: I have lost count of the e-mails I have received from Protandim enthusiasts trying to convince me that it works and that I should change my mind. I’ve spent hours trying to explain my reasoning in e-mails, and it’s becoming a repetitive chore, so I am writing this so that next time I get an e-mail inquiry I can simply forward this link.

What Is In It?

Protandim is a mixture of milk thistle, bacopa extract, ashwagandha, green tea extract, and turmeric extract (all of which, incidentally, can be purchased individually at much lower cost).

What Do They Claim It Does?

As described on Wikipedia:

The manufacturers of Protandim claim the product can indirectly increase antioxidant activity by up-regulating endogenous antioxidant factors such as the enzymes superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase, as well as the tripeptide glutathione, and by activation of theNrf2 pathway.

Nrf2 is a transcription factor that upregulates the expression of various genes that may regulate oxidative stress. Drugs to target that pathway might have benefits for diseases that are caused or exacerbated by oxidative stress. Such drugs are investigational at this point, but the makers of Protandim have skipped the investigational stage and are marketing a product that they think is effective for almost every ailment known to man and that they are promoting as an anti-aging supplement.

In the application for their second patent, awarded in 2008, they wrote:

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.

Wow! Yet the website says it “does not market and sell Protandim® for the purposes of preventing, treating, curing, or mitigating any disease, including MS.”

So what purposes are we to think they do market and sell it for? Since oxidation is thought to be somehow involved in all the listed conditions, they are speculating that Protandim should prevent or treat those diseases by increasing the body’s production of antioxidants. They are promoting it for “anti-aging” because they are speculating that it will prevent or treat age-related diseases. They have no credible evidence to support their speculations.

An Update of Their Evidence

My original article only mentioned the 3 studies available at that time. As of this writing (October 2011), a query to PubMed brings up 8 published, peer-reviewed studies:

  1. A human study showing changes in TBARS, SOD, and catalase.(2006)
  2. A cell culture study showing increases in glutathione. (2009)
  3. A mouse study showing an effect on skin tumor carcinogenesis. (2009)
  4. A study in a mechanical animal model showing that chronic pulmonary artery pressure elevation is insufficient to explain right heart failure. (2009)
  5. Another mouse study showing that Protandim suppressed experimental carcinogenesis and suggesting that suppression of p53 and induction of MnSOD may play an important role.  (2010)
  6. A study of muscular dystrophy mice showing that Protandim decreased plasma osteopontin and improved markers of oxidative stress. (2010)
  7. An ex vivo (tissue culture) study of human saphenous veins, showing that Protandim attenuated intimal hyperplasia. (2011)
  8. An evaluation of the role of manganese superoxide dismutase in decreasing tumor incidence in a two-stage skin carcinogenesis model in mice. (2011)

Note that there have been no human clinical studies since the one in 2006. The newer studies are just more animal and laboratory studies, so they do nothing to change my previous conclusion.  If I were a mouse being artificially induced to develop skin cancer in a lab study, I might seriously consider taking Protandim.  But so far, the only study in humans measured increased antioxidant levels by a blood test but did not even attempt to assess whether those increases corresponded to any measurable clinical benefit, for cancer or for anything else.

My Assessment of the Evidence

This sounds like a promising area of investigation, but many treatments look promising in animal and in vitro (test tube) studies in the lab and then fail to translate to any useful clinical applications in humans. Much has been said about the benefits of antioxidants, but giving antioxidants as supplements has generally resulted in no benefits and even sometimes in harm. Protandim is trying another approach: getting the body to produce more of its own antioxidants. Even if it does that, it still remains to be seen whether those higher levels will correspond to any meaningful clinical benefits. And the tests they are using for antioxidant levels may not mean what they would like to think they mean. Sometimes the same substance can show either anti-oxidant or pro-oxidant effects depending on which test is used. And adverse consequences haven’t been ruled out. Free radicals play important roles in human health: they are essential for killing bacteria, cell signaling, and other functions. Raising antioxidant levels might interfere with some of these essential functions. Human biochemistry is complex, and changing one factor often has unexpected effects elsewhere in the web.

Conclusion

We simply don’t know enough at this point to recommend Protandim for treatment or prevention of any disease, for anti-aging, for making people feel healthier or more energetic, or for anything else. We need good human studies showing that people who take Protandim have better clinical outcomes than people who don’t. For instance, fewer heart attacks or fewer cancers…not just higher levels on a TBARS test. What we need is POEMS: patient-oriented evidence that matters.

I Get Mail

I heard from doctors working with the company, from company employees, from distributors, from customers, from relatives of customers, and even from people who were none of the above. Most of my correspondents completely failed to understand what I meant by human studies with meaningful clinical outcomes. Some of them thought I was not aware of the published evidence. Some of them wanted to insult me and the whole medical profession. Some offered testimonials. One wanted to revise the Hippocratic Oath. Others wanted to inform me that Protandim had been awarded patents and that its shares were doing well on the stock market. Some were more coherent than others. Here’s a sampling (errors in the original):

  • My wife has stage 4 metastatic breast cancer, a friend was telling about a natural supplement called Protandim. I was thinking about buying it after he showed me a study from LSU that says is maybe helpful in fighting cancer. I just ran across your blog and you say it is a scam. I am wondering if you are familiar with the LSU study
  • Did LSU not just present evidence that TBAR reduction with Protandim led to a meaningful clinical outcome?.. Regarding glutathione’s potential efficacy: go to youtube and search Dr. David perlmutter. Check out the before and after videos of Parkinson’s patients being injected with glutathione… Protandim is unique in having extensive scientific validation published in our most well respected, peer reviewed journals..
  • How do you feel about Protandim now that it has a clinical study?
  • I was impressed that Dr Perlmutter and Dr Colker both endorse protandim. What about the recent peer reviews on Cancer and Heart disease as well as the one on Glutathione?
  • Purpose of the email is to entice, I hope, you into taking a closer look at Protandim… Publishing a negative opinion will impact these people and if you are wrong and Dr. McCord is correct, there are a number of people who will not benefit from what is considered by a growing number of scientists to be cutting edge science in ageing and disease prevention.  My opinion is that you would benefit from getting up to speed in this arena.
  • You quackbusted on a Protandim back in 2005.  I’m wondering if you still feel the same about Protandim and Dr Joe McCord now that it’s 5 years later???  I was just made aware of protandim and wanted to know more because everything I am seeing is pointing me in the direction of yes you should be taking the stuff!!
  • Obviously there are 2 sides to what is going on here and I’m quite disturbed with the medical community and the belief that it’s their way or the highway and that the human body isn’t capable of fixing itself as Gerson explains it!!  I have been on the Protandim for 3 weeks tomorrow just 1 supplement a day and I feel a difference in my knees and ankles with a little more kick when going up the stairs…I’m actually bouncing a lot better than I was 3 weeks ago…I’m still on a 12,000 ORAC Unit intake so nothing has changed except the protandim supplements…it appears I’m experiencing the same thing I am seeing/hearing from the others!!
  • you stille hold that opinion after the new studies ?How can you explain the fact that many universities fundind their own research ?Is dr Pearlmuter that endors protandim will risk his reputation if it is not the real deal
  • Protandim was up 10% yesterday on volume of 177,000.  Another step in the right direction.
  • (paraphrased) My friend’s lipid peroxidase levels rose; here’s his lab report to prove it.
  • proven by peer reviewed, published scientific research to reduce oxidative stress by an average of 40%, slowing down the cellular aging process to that of a 20 year-old!
  • I accept your views and beliefs for they are yours, and who am I to disagree?  I do have a couple points to voice which may offer some advice on confirming whether a product is legitimate or fake….I notice that you mentioned because something is not FDA approved that it must therefore be quackery.  Again, this is your belief, so ok…. Herbs have been used in medicines around the world, successfully, and for thousands of years…prior to Western medicine.  The FDA and many doctors here in the ‘West’ are unsure of these remedies and this causes fear.  Ego, a human trait, can also get in the way.  It’s just our nature.” (this was from someone who has yet to try the product but plans to do so soon)
  • that’s the problem with modern medicine.  they are challenged by something, so incredibly, that they would rather eliminate it than find perhaps a new direction for health and medicine.   Ego?  Fear?
  • btw, you know an underlying problem in medicine today?  the hippocratic oath.   “First, do no harm.”    The reason this needs to be improved is because that oath has the words:  ‘no’ and ‘harm’ in it.   Modern psychology today will confirm that our brains really only focus on the key words, rather than a ‘no’ or ‘dont’ that precedes a statement.
  • Harriet, have you ever challenged any modern medicine, Lipitor as an example? Or any so called modern medicine?
  • I am not against allopathic medicine, however, I feel that our bodies work better with organic natural medicine.
  •  while I share some of your concerns, I feel that the house is burning and something must be done for our poorly aging population.
  • Just wanted to make you aware that Protandim received its 4th patent.”Compositions for alleviating inflammation and oxidative stress in a mammal
  • I have tons of them [clinical studies] , I have MD ‘s by the tons getting involved . I have clients getting of MEDs , cholesterol , Bp’s. Insulin cut in half , sleep apnea gone, chronic fatigue gone. Should I listen to results and MD’s and Using Godly wisdom or your bashing and other people see a nutritionist’s opinion as important. Thanks any way ms. Hall”
  • “It more than establish’s things when people’s lives have been changed. I didn’t see your name on the winners of the Elliot Cresant award hince , Joe McCord . Last time I checked all my clients were humans . All of them have been on for 4 months or more so there is no placebo affect. Oh and I trust the holy spirit more than all the above things. Thanks
  •  I have read some of your older write-ups about Protandim… it seems many are dated 2005.  Surely by now you have changed your mind about Protandim. The proof it works is now everywhere. I have seen many benefits myself and my wife has finally got her sugar levels under control by doing nothing other than take Protandim.  I do not sell this nor own stock in the company but I try to get as many people on this as I can… because it works. Are you on board or are you still against Protandim?

One Skeptical Message

I did get one message (only one) that was skeptical about Protandim. It pointed out further problems with the research:

Both Protandim and Mona Vie site numerous peer reviewed, published studies that support their claims. Upon basic investigation you will see that all the peer review studies are lead by the same shareholder / researcher (One for Mona Vie and One for Protandim). Shouldn’t this obvious conflict be a red flag for the peers that are reviewing? In addition for Protandim products most of the papers were published in one journal of which that lead researcher is also an editor. The only other journal they were published in is Plos One which appears to be an open access online journal with a very high publish rate per submission (I read 98%).

A message to Protandim supporters

I am not “against” Protandim. I would be very pleased if it turns out to improve people’s health. I await clinical research with great interest. I would not take it myself or recommend it at this time because I have seen too many initially promising treatments turn out not to work or even to cause harm.  I understand why some people are enthusiastic about Protandim and want to take it now rather than wait for better evidence, and I have no objection to their taking it. I am not “quackbusting;” I am only asking for the same kind of evidence that the scientific community requires before it accepts any new treatment. Please try to understand what I mean by clinical studies with meaningful outcomes and contact me again when such studies are available… and not before.

 

 

Posted in: Herbs & Supplements

Leave a Comment (38) ↓

38 thoughts on “Pursued by Protandim Proselytizers

  1. cervantes says:

    What’s wrong with quackbusting?

  2. windriven says:

    “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… ad nauseum”

    The one true cure for all disease; that should be enough to set off bullshit alarms in even the most credulous brain. But no, while ignorance is only skin deep, stupidity runs right to the bone.

    Let us suspend disbelief for a moment and imagine that Protandim (note the Big Pharma sounding name) actually has some beneficial effect. Has a mechanism of action been elucidated in the patents or journal articles? No, I didn’t think so. And Protandim is a melange of eye of newt and the virgin blossoms of Queen Anne’s lace? If we don’t understand the mechanism of action, if we don’t know what the active agent or agents are, how do we know that the Protandim we bought today has the same magic as the bottle we bought last month?

    The point is that herbals are plant extracts. Anyone who has ever grown tomatoes knows that ambient temperature, amount of water and amount of sunlight have dramatic effects on the flavor and sweetness of the fruit. And this is to say nothing of various strains. The flavor of Sungold is totally different from Stupice is totally different from San Marzano. If it happens to be a bad year for milk thistle, does the magic turn to dust?

    Ignorant of the pharmacologically active agents, ignorant of mechanism of action, and consequently ignorant of the amount of magic in any given batch, the whole thing seems an incredible crap shoot. And that presumes that perfect Protandim even rises to the level of crap.

  3. Angora Rabbit says:

    Exercise will do the same thing – raise GSH, enhance anti-oxidant systems, reduce TBARS. And you don’t need to spend big $ to do it. I think there’s a conspiracy of AltMed types to prevent us from using natural exercise which is cheap and free.

    (sarcasm off)

  4. Angora Rabbit says:

    @Dr. Hall – thank you for another outstanding post. It’s got to be hard dealing with these people every day. I admire your willingness to respond to them. Thank you for fighting the good fight.

  5. David Gorski says:

    Sadly, I predict that this post will only send more hate male Harriet’s way.

    On the other hand, as managing editor of SBM, it does my heart good to see that we’re influential enough to be seen as a threat by promoters of supplements whose efficacy and safety are not supported by science. :-)

  6. Harriet Hall says:

    @David Goski,

    “send more hate male Harriet’s way”
    Some of the messages were from females. :-)

  7. Quill says:

    I was not familiar with the amazing Protandim so I looked it up. Lets see…a product made from readily available ingredients, surrounded by a legal trademark wall, sold by aggressive marketing at incredible markup and promoted as a prevention and cure for everything except death. Ah! It’s a patent medicine! Perhaps they should have called it Hadacol-II?

  8. It should be mentioned that Protandim is distributed via multi-level marketing. So the scamminess is pretty much dialed up to 11 by that. Really, that’s all I needed to hear about it.

  9. David Gorski says:

    “send more hate male Harriet’s way”
    Some of the messages were from females.

    That’s what I get for typing too fast and not looking at the comment before hitting “Submit Comment.” D’oh!

  10. daedalus2u says:

    The problem with trying to stimulate Nrf2 is that it is really tricky. The triggering of stress compensatory pathways (of which Nrf2 is one), is the mechanism for hormesis. A small dose of something toxic (a dose within the compensatory range) activates stress compensatory mechanisms to deal with the stress plus a little extra. This website has a good discussion of hormesis.

    http://www.grc.nia.nih.gov/branches/lns/mcnu.htm

    A very nice discussion of this in the context of why lots of vegetables are good for you, it isn’t the nutrients or antioxidants, it is the toxins.

    http://www.grc.nia.nih.gov/branches/lns/BestinSmallDoses.pdf

    The problem with doing this using a mixture of herbs is getting the dose right. You need to get the dose right to each cell in each tissue compartment that needs its stress compensatory pathways upregulated. That is difficult to do, especially when you have no data, no mechanisms, no clear understanding of which compounds are important, what is their bioavailability, where do they go and what do they do, and when you have no data.

    The compensatory range can be pretty small. If you exceed the dose that physiology can compensate for, then there are adverse effects, damage and a shortening of lifespan.

    The reason that random mixtures of herbs stimulate Nrf2 is because they are toxic and produce reactive oxygen species which activate Nrf2. What matters is the dose. Anything that activates Nrf2 will be toxic (injurious and even fatal) at some dose. What that dose is depends on a lot of things and really can’t be predicted in advance, especially if you have no idea what the compounds are, at what level, with what bioavailability, with what effects, with what metabolites and how they interact with the rest of an individual’s physiology.

    Essentially anything and everything will exhibit hormesis and will (at some dose) exhibit an apparently beneficial effect (depending on what you measure). If you measure something else, it might not appear to be so beneficial. There is lots of cross-talk between these stress compensatory pathways, so there are additive effects and subtractive effects.

    You could (in principle) take any random toxic crap, and at some dose it would exhibit hormesis in laboratory tests (essentially everything that has been tested does). Cadmium does at ppb levels. Does that mean cadmium is good for you? No it doesn’t.

  11. S.C. former shruggie says:

    Wow. Simply incredible.

    They claim Protandim cures a long laundry list of totally unrelated diseases, including AIDS. They follow that with an exculpating “product is not intended to treat any disease.” It’s circulated by multi-level marketing. People not only believe the claims (have they never heard of hype? Exaggerated advertsing?) they send you voluminous hate mail.

    Bravo, Dr. Hall. I’m not sure how you can stand arguing against popular nonsense with people who don’t understand enough to comprehend your rebuttals, but however you do it, keep it up.

  12. ConspicuousCarl says:

    Forget about the supposed evidence and the shady multilevel marketing gimmick.

    The important thing is the ingredients. Milk thistle? Turmeric? Calcium? IT’S JUST A BUNCH OF CRAP YOU CAN ALREADY BUY AT WALGREENS, but they stuck it in one bottle and charge $50.

  13. Sure, there is that. :-)

  14. tmac57 says:

    Quill said:

    Perhaps they should have called it Hadacol-II?

    Well,because of their aggressive marketing before the research is complete,maybe they should call it Cartequine.

  15. CarolM says:

    The only malady on that list of ailments is flatulence.

  16. Mark P says:

    I wouldn’t get too worked up about the list of ailments on the patent. All patents go overboard in listing every possible thing they might work on, because they would hate to miss the one thing it did actually work on. I used to work in a patent office, and every patent was like that (at least back then).

  17. JPZ says:

    @Mark P

    I read a lot of patents for my work, and I can confirm that adding a laundry list of conditions to increase patent coverage is typical. Nestle has a couple of paragraphs in most all of their patents that cover every possible food product they might ever be interested in.

    @Harriet Hall

    As far as I know, listing a disease condition in a use patent does not constitute a drug claim for the FDA. Its just a legal manuever. If claims about these disease conditions are showing up in advertising, web sites or labels, then that is a serious problem.

  18. pmoran says:

    It would be be astonishing if taking pharmacologically active dosages of those herbs, daily, and over the decades presumably necessary for any preventative effects did not have at present unknown adverse effects.

  19. Harriet Hall says:

    @JPZ, “listing a disease condition in a use patent does not constitute a drug claim for the FDA”

    Of course it doesn’t. But it does express a belief on the part of the manufacturer. If they didn’t believe it was useful for any of those conditions, why would they be offering it to the public?

  20. I’m sure that milk thistle can have some effects. Once I felt an uncontrollable urge to eat of milk thistle for several days. After a time I became very drowsy. When I woke up I was trapped in some sort of hard case. It was only when I finally broke free that I found I had a fine set of wings and urge to immigrate to Mexico.

    Nice article HH, enjoyed the alliteration.

  21. pmoran says:

    Speaking of adverse effects, it is often difficult to know whether some reactions of tissue cultures and experimental animals to drugs or herbs are beneficial and desirable or the result of noxious effects of the agent.

    There is no chemical that will not have SOME effect if given in sufficient amounts and antioxidant production could well be a defensive response.

    I recall one experiment with mouse cancer, where an agent seemed to consistently reduce tumour growth in high dosages.

    It was found that it simply caused the mice to lose their appetite, and in that model (but definitely NOT in most human cancers) starvation reduced tumour growth.

  22. Lazy Man and Money says:

    Thanks Dr. Hall for addressing this topic once again. I know how you feel as I wrote about Protandim and have gotten 3 or 4 emails a day about it.

    I had written about MonaVie before because I noticed a disturbing trend. Companies create a health-related product and through multi-level marketing spread claims about the product aiding with multiple diseases. One of the ways they are doing this is by encouraging this research and staying away from POEMs. POEMs would disprove the product and effectively put the company out of business. If the product worked for even just a couple of the things listed in the patent, it would be worth billions. LifeVantage will never go down this road.

    Distributors are either lying in the testimonials (it helps to sell the grossly overpriced product) or just experience a placebo effect. These companies are fine by this because a fair percentage of people who try the product will keep buying it – either due to the placebo effect or for the perceived business opportunity. (Give a look into One24 if you want your mind blown.)

    You’ve really only hit the tip of the iceberg with this. If you want to learn a lot, lot more search my username for my website.

  23. JPZ says:

    @Harriet Hall

    “But it does express a belief on the part of the manufacturer. If they didn’t believe it was useful for any of those conditions, why would they be offering it to the public?”

    I think that is what Mark P and I were trying to express. Companies list any condition they can just to expand the patent space they cover. The patent office doesn’t evaluate efficacy, mechanism or even truth (slight exaggeration). They just want to check if someone else patented it before, if it is in the public domain already, or if it is something that can be patented. I may been oversimplifying somewhat and perhaps Mark P would have better insights having been a patent agent. I just wanted to mention it because it is a bit misleading to say that portion of the patent is a list of conditions they intend to treat. If you want to direct your future hecklers to this post, I might suggest that this is a weak point in an otherwise strong case that you make.

  24. Harriet Hall says:

    @JPZ,
    If they do not believe what they listed on the patent application “are useful to prevent or treat the following disorders and diseases:” then what do you think they do believe and what is their justification for marketing the product?

  25. JPZ says:

    @Harriet Hall

    I can certainly understand that you looked at the list of diseases in the patent and found it laughable. Patents can be crazy that way.

    Patents aren’t about what they believe. They are more like a dog that raises its leg at a fire hydrant to mark its territory. You don’t know if it is a mean dog, a social dog, or a lazy dog based on this behavior. It just wants everyone to know that this hydrant is “his” territory. Mostly this is wishful thinking on the dog’s part – they mark territory well outside what they actually defend/control. The same with patents (kinda). They mark out what the company considers “their territory” so no one else will raise their leg next to it. Territory and actual behavior/beliefs are two different spheres – the latter much, much smaller.

  26. Regardless of the significance of the patent language specifically, the marketing language and tone is indeed very nearly as hyperbolic, and Protandim is clearly pitched as a near panacea, on the “strength” of the idea that antioxidants are good for almost anything that ails you.

  27. JPZ says:

    @Paul Ingraham

    Their website seems to walk the fine line between drugs and dietary supplements without going into the conditions listed in the patents. If it is a MLM, then it is not that rare for “true believer” members to exaggerate benefits to get a financial incentive (not that such behavior is acceptable). I am not in any way defending the company. I really know very little about them. I simply wanted to share that companies may do one thing and “the faithful” may do another.

  28. tmac57 says:

    The makers of Cartequine errr I mean Protandim, state clearly on their website:

    *These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

    I believe that statement fully,and I, for one, will take them at their word.

  29. Quill says:

    tmac57 wrote:

    Well,because of their aggressive marketing before the research is complete,maybe they should call it Cartequine.

    Good point. Hadacol at least had a proven ingredient (alcohol) in it and in sufficient quantity to have a noticeable, predictable affect.

    Perhaps Protandim is some kind of acronym gone wild? Maybe it stands for something like People Regularly Ordering Things Actually Never Demonstrated Indispensable or Medicinal.

  30. JPZ says:

    @tmac57

    That statement is required labeling by the FDA – word for word. I suppose you are taking the FDA at their word is what you meant? The FDA does the best they can with what funding they have, and I have the best of impressions from the dozen or so FDA employees I have met. Or, were you trying to be funny? If so, I really don’t think the FDA should be mocked for doing its best to comply with Congressional mandates and court orders. These people work hard under difficult pressures to keep you and I safe as possible from dangers in food, drugs, and dietary supplements. Let’s give them credit for doing the best that they can.

  31. Khym Chanur says:

    @JPZ:

    I believe tmac57 was referring to “This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease”. That is, if it’s not intended to treat, cure, or prevent any disease, then s/he’s not going to buy it.

  32. tmac57 says:

    JPZ-
    Khym Chanur got it exactly right. I also neglected to mention that the ‘quack Miranda’ warning was at the bottom of their page,in tiny letters,and in a very faint font…It’s almost as if they didn’t want anyone to see it.
    FWIW,I think the FDA does provide a valuable service.Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

  33. tmac57 says:

    @Quill-That was sweet! Like :)

  34. Oh! This one is soooo magnificently indecipherable!

    “Should I listen to results and MD’s and Using Godly wisdom or your bashing and other people see a nutritionist’s opinion as important. Thanks any way ms. Hall.”

    WTH? And I especially like the omission of Dr. The uncapitalized ms. implies all kinds of sexist crazy.

  35. totalhealthexp says:

    okay here we go the ninth peer review review study that continues to show the science behind this. this is true clinical study against other drugs used on people with colon cancer , heart disease and alzhiemers. page six of the full peer review shows why this product is real and stands alone. just like the lazy man has not made any quotes on his website since this peer review came out last month. i can promise you that 95% of the people i put on this product this yr are still on the product and know why they are to take it. i have people with medical degrees, biology degree, all who have studied and know why this product is good. will you continue to say this as more and more clinical trials come out and more and more people get results on this product. i met a lady 3 weeks ago that got off all her MS meds and saved her self $300 a month. and i talk to her in person and im positive she isn’t lying about her testimony. oh and i studied monavie and found nothing that interested me. this product was totally different and proven to work 100% of the time. should i believe you or Dr Joe McCord the last reciepient of the Elliot Cressen Medal. plus all my customers who love the product and what its doing for them. network marketing is a way to get a product into the hands of a consumer much faster with more info, or it wouldnt be taught at the harvard school of business. yes some MLM’s are bad, but this one is not and will be the first product to stand alone.

    1. Harriet Hall says:

      The “ninth peer review study” is just another cell culture study. Totalhealthexp joins the ranks of those who failed to understand what I wrote.

  36. Scott says:

    Wall of text, inability to use the shift key, testimonials without any data, complete failure to provide references to the papers claimed as evidence… gather ’round, kiddies, we have a genuine example of the wish-it-was-rare crankus medicalus!

    *oohs and aahs from the crowd*

Comments are closed.