If they really were concerned about ORAC and such, then the label should recommend consuming the entire bottle in a matter of a couple of days at most. Or use small bottles.

Compare this against an apple, which has a thick skin to protect against oxygen permeation. Bite into the apple, and leave it on the counter. In a matter of hours it has turned color from oxidation. The same is happening to the fruits in MonaVie.

So, an open bottle will affect the antioxidant fighting properties of the juice. Not that they were very high to begin with.

But…This time, make sure the majority of participants are within the MONAVIE target audience: Individuals who are regularly taking prescription medications, are obese and/or unhealthy, and have plenty of the exact kind of health problems that distributors (and Schauss) claim monavie “helps” or cures (such as arthritis, autism, cancer, mental illness, cardiovascular disease, pain, etc..) AND participants take the product as recommended by the company: 2 oz 2x day for 3 months (from the same bottle stored in a refrigerator after it is opened until it is depleted during regular use).

No more opening a new bottle before EACH ingestion for testing! No more hand-picking VERY small sample sizes! No more excluding unhealthy adults. No more inflated serving sizes. No more fasting overnight!

Draw blood before starting the trial for a baseline, and draw blood during the trial (at whatever intervals you wish). Perform regular Dr. checkups and evaluations as the study progresses to document the effects. How hard is that?? It should have been done already..unless the science is not up to snuff and results cannot be duplicated ;-)

When those findings prove us “haters” all wrong, then I think we will all shut the hell up and go away, don’t you agree? Until then, we will point out JUNK SCIENCE where we see it, and we (the public) demand that monavie sales folk abide by the current laws and regulations regarding the health claims. IF you are going to claim a product has health benefits, then PROVE IT FIRST.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but NO studies have even been attempted to show that whatever nutrients that are in monavie actually survive in a refrigerator for any length of time without succumbing to oxidative stress and light (which rapidly degrade foods), and are consistently bio-available throughout the life of the bottle in the refrigerator (approximately 1 week).

[Editor's Quote: That's exactly the point. MonaVie has provided no such studies. There purposely avoid doing any kind of comparison study because they'll look bad as they did here: http://www.mensjournal.com/superjuices-on-trial. When you charge $1.80 an ounce for juice with almost no vitamins and no fiber, the burden of proof is on you. Ask your employer to prove the value of their product compared to competitors. Until then the smart consumer is better off paying less than 10 cents an ounce.]

The latest study in “Food Technology” ‘Anti-oxidant capacities of flavonoid compounds isolated from acai pulp’ (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) by Kang et al. researchers say that in evaluating the anti-oxidant capacity of natural products, combining both chemical and cell-based assays will provide more comprehensive understanding of anti-oxidant effects and potential biological relevance. So ORAC alone does not explain acai’ in vivo anti-oxidant activity.

[Editor's Quote: This is another study by MonaVie's Schauss. Also, MonaVie is less than 2% Freeze-Dried Acai]

The study mentioned at the top was published in a peer-reviewed very well-known journal for food products. If other scientists did not have a problem with that what makes you so special to talk about the science behind that study? Pardon me, but you are just ex-pharmacist technician – is this right?

[Editor's Quote: It's not a very well-known journal. I think Vogel previously said it ranked 101 in journal authority by one peer-ranking. It's also pretty unusual that this is the only place that Dr. Schauss can get himself published. Perhaps he has some kind of deal with peer-reviewers of this journal. (That's just speculation on my part.) The important thing to note here is the actual information in the study and the fact that Tom hasn't debated any of the points above showing that the study isn't relevant.]