In a surprising series of posts on Facebook the son of MonaVie CEO, Dallin Larsen, Dallin Larsen Jr. said he wants out of MonaVie. He doesn’t want to be a part of an organization that lies to people even if it means losing his trust fund. On his Facebook page there are quotes such as:
“there has to be a way out”
“@ david bunker…this is me calling out your fat tubby ass. You work for a nutritional company yet you eat burgers and fries all day. Chunk a chunk a chunk a chunk … I understand business is business which is why you should practice what you preach…I am son of the founding chair and president. Based on how much money the company makes is based on how much goes into my trust fund. GUESS WHAT? I don’t want a trust fund, I don’t want money from a man who walked out on me as a small child leaving me to try and raise four girls on my own at age 11. So dad go ahead and keep your damn money I don’t want it. I’m done being the man people expect me to be. You have all been lied to, they are poisoning you in order to depopulate, don’t buy it…@FBI—I have information for you. CTU has contacted me…I can be reached at dallinlarsen@yahoo.com”
“Dome dome origato nehow dashimash hola and hello. forgive me If my pronunciation is off : My name is Dallin Larsen Jr. Some of you may know me as Ross. I am the son of whom many know as CEO, Founder, and Chairman Dallin Albert Larsen, not to be confused. The Executives and I have decided it is best that I do not work at Monavie any longer based on personal reasons. I wish you all the best of luck I’m just not making what I need to here. I hope that one day you and your families will be in a position not only financially, but physically, mentally, and emotionally to the point where you no longer have increased stress from your job. I hope one day to meet all of you and know you are doing a terrific job at what you do; otherwise, the Monavie Corporation would not be where it is today. I’m done being the man people expect me to be. If I am fortunate enough to meet you, do not hesitate to come up and say hello, I don’t bite…delta alpha lambda lambda ioto nu lambda if you want fresh milk, don’t poison the cow for only the fool works for free. I love you all, I hope for nothing but the best for all of you…and David Bunker I forgive you for your selfish self-indulging idiocracy you son of a bitch you’re all doing a great job. Keep it up, don’t quit, blessings. love. ohbdeegada.”
This has obviously put MonaVie on alert. There a couple of messages from Randy Schroeder, International Distributor Ambassador at MonaVie, on his wall saying, “Dallin…call me. My private number is in your in box.”
I have also received word that the last quote from Dallin Larsen Jr. on Facebook was sent to everyone at MonaVie Internationally. The person said that his father followed up with the following email to everyone:
“All, I apologize for having to respond to all of you as a result of my son’s email. I love my son and he has been and is going through some personal challenges. I appreciate you honoring our family’s need and desire to deal with his challenges in private. Sincerely, Dallin A. Larsen Founder and CEO; MonaVie”
Clearly dad isn’t getting his wish due to the information being put publicly on Facebook. I understand that not every family is perfect all the time and we all go through some personal challenges. That’s not really the point of this post. The point is that it is notable that Dallin Larsen Jr. would give up a substantial trust fund and saying that everyone is being lied to about MonaVie and that he’s willing to tell the FBI about it. Hey, readers of this website have known about the lies for years, but it noteworthy that there lies that would be of interest to the FBI.
It’s also good to have the confirmation that top MonaVie executives don’t actually live a healthy lifestyle. Finally, there’s the thought that if this is how MonaVie treats their own people, what are doing to others?
Here is a screenshot from Dallin Larsen Jr.’s Facebook page (click for larger image):
This post involves:
... and focuses on:
Posted by MonaVie Scam on January 19, 2012 in
dallin larsen
Many MonaVie distributors may claim that it is a healthy drink. As we’ve seen, MonaVie lacks nutrition. However, upon further investigation of the ingredients it seems that MonaVie contains a known carcinogen – a cancer causing ingredient.
That ingredient is benzene. Now you might be thinking, “I have a bottle of MonaVie and I don’t see benzene on the label.” Sodium Benzoate + Vitamin C = Benzene:
“Sodium benzoate has already been the subject of concern about cancer because when mixed with the additive vitamin C in soft drinks, it causes benzene, a carcinogenic substance.”
Here’s the list of ingredients from a bottle of MonaVie :
You might have blow that up a bit to read it. However, you’ll see that sodium benzoate and vitamin C are clearly there.
The FDA has created a question and answer for such products. It has tested quite a few products, but it has not tested MonaVie.
In any case, a wise consumer should avoid any “health” drink that has unknown dangers like proven cancer causing ingredients. MonaVie would fit into that category.
This post involves:
... and focuses on:
Posted by MonaVie Scam on September 20, 2011 in
MonaVie Kills?
[The following is research from frequent commenter Vogel... I have cleaned up some of the formatting.]
I had a look at MonaVie’s latest publication that just came out this week. This is MonaVie’s worst study yet. My critical analysis follows; it is by no means all-encompassing of the many flaws.
Publication
Jensen GS, Ager DM, Redman KA, Mitzner MA, Benson KF, Schauss AG. Pain reduction and improvement in range of motion after daily consumption of an açai (Euterpe oleracea mart.) pulp-fortified polyphenolic-rich fruit and berry juice blend. J Med Food. 2011 Apr 6.
The Authors
The article features the usual cast of MonaVie’s pseudo-scientific hacks; namely Alexander Schauss and Gitte Jensen. Their shenanigans have already been discussed in great depth on Lazyman and JuiceScam already. In a nutshell, both are skeezy lackeys of the supplement industry.
Schauss, holder of a mail-order PhD, has been in tight with MonaVie since the company’s inception. He conducted all of their bogus tainted research, heads the company’s “scientific advisory board”, is a frequent speaker at MonaVie distributor meetings, sells his books and CDs to Monavie distributors, and holds the patent to the freeze-dried acai that was allegedly used in Monavie (and which served as a fundamental part of Monavie’s advertising claims about the product’s uniqueness and “efficacy”). Schauss is also known for having previously peddled his own line of BS supplements (Feed My Brain) to treat autistic children.
Jensen is best known for her association with the Klamath Lake blue-green algae scam (shut down by the FDA), and for a previous MonaVie publication she coauthored with Schauss. She operates a tiny little insignificant research-for-hire organization (HolgerNIS) in Klamath Falls. You can find the information on StemTech here and here.
One of the other authors is David Marshall Ager, an obscure Klamath Falls chiropractor who operates out of a clinic (Cascade Chiropractic and Rehabilitation) so insignificant that it doesn’t even have its own website. This is his first scientific publication.
The remaining authors, who don’t have a PhD or MD degree among them, are underlings of Gitte Jensen and affiliated with HolgerNIS.
The Journal
The Journal of Medicinal Food, a rag for the nutraceutical industry, is produced by the Korean Society of Food Science and Nutrition. It has an ISI impact factor of 1.39. For perspective, this compares to top-tier scientific journals in roughly the same way that a Suzuki Sidekick would compare to a shiny new Ferrari (e.g., top-tier journals have an IF of about 30, going as high as 50). Read more about Impact Factor on Wikipedia.
If it dawns on you to you ask why MonaVie would publish a study in an insignificant Asian nutraceutical journal, then you are asking the right question. There is no legitimate reason other than that they couldn’t get their crap study published anywhere that actually matters.
The Study Design and Methodology
This was an open-label study, meaning that it did not include any placebo group or blinding, and it was conducted in a mere 14 subjects who were not enrolled in a randomized fashion. On that basis, this would be considered by any expert as an extremely poorly designed study; so poor in fact that it would be completely incapable of generating any remotely reliable data. The results would be susceptible to bias and the study cohort was too small for definitive conclusions to be drawn. In contrast, a randomized placebo-controlled double-blinded clinical trial would have been an appropriate experimental design.
The authors state explicitly that they included 2 subjects that did not meet the study’s inclusion criteria. This is unheard of — simply unfathomable. Inclusion criteria exist for a reason and subjects should never be included who do not meet a study’s preset criteria. My mind boggles at the ineptitude of the investigators for violating their own rules of the study.
“The original plan was to involve 12 participants; however, during the initial recruitment and interview process 14 interested participants were identified. Because this study was performed with the intent of broadly exploring what pain conditions may benefit from consumption of MonaVie Active, we decided to enroll all 14 even though some did not meet the original inclusion criteria.” [Page 3]
Several of the endpoints used to measure outcomes (pain, range of motion, activities of daily living) were subjective (based on patient questionnaires) and, thus, easily influenced by the study’s poor design (i.e. lack of blinding and placebo control) and susceptible to the placebo effect and subject/researcher bias. One of the few non-subjective measures used (to assess antioxidant effects) was the CAP-e assay, which we have discussed here previously. It is an anomalous assay developed by one of Jensen’s underlings (Dana Honzel, while she was an undergraduate student at Santa Clara University) and has never been used or validated by any other researcher.
It would not be considered as an even remotely acceptable method of measurement by any bona fide researcher.
The investigators also implemented an inappropriate method for analyzing statistical significance. They used a t-test instead of a repeated measures analysis, such as one-way ANOVA, to measure the effect of multiple measurements over time.
Ethical Issues
The study does not contain the required Declaration of Helsinki statement indicating that it was conducted in accordance with internationally recognized standards for human medical experimentation, nor does it state that the study was approved by any independent review board or ethics committee. These are grave oversights.
The study involved blood draws, yet it does not appear that any of the authors are qualified to perform such procedures. Lastly, the article does not include any statement indicating that the subjects provided informed consent prior to participation in the study; this too is a grave oversight and it adds to the overall picture that this study was not conducted in accordance with standards for ethical research.
Results
Because of the lack or blinding and placebo control, all results can be attributed solely to the placebo effect and investigator/subject bias.
The medical histories of the patients were not considered (probably attributable to the fact that no REAL doctor was involved in the study, and a chiropractor wouldn’t be qualified to assess their case histories). This oversight is ridiculous. No serious medical research study on joint pain would ever be undertaken without thorough medical exams and chart reviews to determine the diagnosis, etiology, and natural history of each patient’s condition. To make matters even worse, the subjects were not excluded from taking concurrent medications. Thus, all results could be attributable to such medication use rather than to Monavie.
The key results reported were improvements in activities of daily living (ADL), range-of-motion, and pain questionnaire scores; increased serum antioxidant status (measured by the unreliable CAP-e assay); and decreased lipid peroxidation (TBARs).
The only potentially reliable and semi-objective indicator of efficacy, the C-reactive protein assay (a surrogate marker of inflammation) was not significantly affected, and to make matters worse, the data were not shown at all (a ridiculous oversight). Equally ridiculous, is the fact that the lipid peroxidation data were not presented, despite the authors’ clam that there was a significant reduction in serum following consumption of Monavie for 12 weeks.
Averaged data for range of motion scores at each timepoint were not presented, making it impossible to verify the authors’ claims of a significant effect. Data for pain and CAP-e results were presented as percent change rather than raw values, again making verification impossible (this method is a common way of fudging and disguising bad data and small, clinically meaningless effects).
Pain scores were reduced from baseline by less than 10% at weeks 2 to 8, and by about 17% at week 12. The data throughout were highly variable (as evidenced by the very large error bars in Figure 4) and the differences from baseline could be just random noise (not to mention attributable to biasing factors, the placebo effect, concurrent medications, regression to the mean, or intentional data fudging).
The correlation graphs for TBARS and CRP in Figure 5 are basically meaningless. They are used to disguise the fact that the actual data TBAR and CRP data were not presented (a fundamental and inexcusable omission).
Interpretive Errors
The study attempts to single out acai as the causative factor responsible for the alleged benefits seen in the study subjects, e.g.:
“Given the combined antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and potentially antinociceptive properties of acai juice and pulp seen in vitro and in vivo, we sought to conduct a pilot study in humans with chronic pain and underlying inflammatory issues.” [Page 2]
“The test product for this study was MonaVie Active (MonaVie LLC, South Jordan, UT, USA), a fruit- and berry-based juice blend with a high level of polyphenolic compounds that exhibit strong antioxidant properties. These properties stem from the predominance of acai pulp in the formulation; pulp of this fruit has been shown to have high superoxide and peroxyl radical scavenging capacities in vitro.” [Page 2]
“Acai contains a range of polyphenols that protect cellular oxidative damage in vitro and provide anti-inflammatory signaling leading to reduced production of free radicals by inflammatory cells.” [Page 8]
However, the article’s discussion (page 8) states that grapes have been shown to have analgesic effects; and even though grape juice is a primary ingredient in Monavie, the authors fail to even remotely entertain the possibility that the alleged effects in this study would have been attributable to the grape juice rather than the acai in Monavie. Furthermore, the authors do not disclose that Monavie is made with significant vitamin and antioxidant fortification, nor do they consider the possibility that the juice’s alleged antioxidant effects could be attributable solely to the vitamin C that the juice is spiked with. Lastly, the do not discuss the possibility that the glucosamine added to Monavie Active could have been responsible for the improvements in patient-reported outcomes independently of any antioxidant effects (i.e. the purported benefits of glucosamine do not involve an oxidative/antioxidant mechanism).
Financial Disclosures
The disclosure statement reveals that the study was funded by Monavie. Schauss declares that he is an unfunded member of the Monavie scientific advisory board. He fails to disclose that he has other relationships with the company, such as the licensing of his patent on Opti-Acai, speaking engagements, and profits from the sale of his CDs and book to Monavie distributors.
This post involves:
... and focuses on:
Posted by MonaVie Scam on May 4, 2011 in
Uncategorized
What is the Difference between MonaVie Active and MonaVie Original?
The MonaVie Original juice, which has a purple label, is the original 19 fruit blend. MonaVie Active, which has a green label, has the same blend of fruits as MonaVie Original, but with the addition of liquid glucosamine and omega 3, 6, and 9 fatty acids. Glucosamine may be helpful for maintaining healthy joints*.
* The United States FDA has not reviewed these statements. Glucosamine has not been shown to treat any disease.
This post involves:
... and focuses on:
Posted by MonaVie Scam on March 20, 2011 in
MonaVie FAQ
For a long time, proponents of this website have made complaints that MonaVie contains very little fiber. They seem right to complain as most any dietitian will claim that fiber is one of the major benefits of eating fruit. With many MonaVie distributors erroneously stating that MonaVie is equal to 13 fruits, it seems like the fiber was a major issue.
“Was” is the keyword there.
MonaVie, in what seems like an admission of guilt, has decided to fortify the juice with Fibersol-2. Their claim: “With Fibersol-2, you can drink to your health with the confidence that the MonaVie juice you love is fortified with soluble fibers.”
Problem solved, right?
Well it doesn’t seem to be true. What is Fibersol-2? The company that makes Fibersol says, “Fibersol-2 digestion resistant maltodextrin is a spray-dried powder produced by a proprietary method of controlled enzymatic hydrolysis of cornstarch.” Cornstarch? A product used as a thickening agent doesn’t seem to be like drinking fruit.
More concerning though is the Maltodextrin. Looking at the Wikipedia page, you find the following information, “It is commonly used for the production of natural sodas and candy.” That’s not necessarily bad, but it hardly a good thing. Later on in the article there is, “While wheat-derived maltodextrin may cause concern for celiacs that it may contain gluten, maltodextrin is such a highly processed ingredient that the protein is removed, rendering it gluten free.” I highlighted the point that it’s highly-processed and hence has the protein removed.
I’m sure a lot of MonaVie distributors are thinking that this is a lot of opinion and surely the people who make Fibersol-2 have far more qualified food scientists than some anonymous guy on the Internet like myself. I’ve heard that before. So I’m going to thwart that defense from the get-go:
It seems that I’m not the only one concerned about these fiber additives, Jacob Gershman for The Slate says Don’t be fooled by polydextrose and other fiber additives. In that article we have the following quote:
“Companies are putting fiber into foods like cookies and ice cream and making people think these are healthy foods, when in fact they should be eating fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. It’s dressing up junk food as health food,” says Bonnie Liebman, director of nutrition at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C. “We have no idea if polydextrose has the same benefits as bran. It’s deceptive.”
I’m not saying that MonaVie is a junk food, but that misses the point. Here is a very, very reputable person specifically saying that companies like MonaVie are adding this to deceive people despite the fact we don’t know the benefits of these additives.
The rest of the Slate article makes a very important point with MonaVie in mind:
Ironically, the rise of these faux-fibers is driven by the greater attention that consumers are paying to nutrition labels. The food companies, in other words, are teaching to the test. Whether it’s reducing fat and calories or adding fiber and vitamins, the industry is getting ever more clever at manipulating ingredients of snacks and other treats so that the stats mimic the nutritional data of fruits and vegetables.
Adding fiber and vitamins? Isn’t that exactly what MonaVie says it is doing here?
But what does Bonnie Liebman (again the very, very reputable Bonnie Liebman) have to say about maltodextrin? She uses polydextrose as the example in the quote. Well fortunately you can read her article here. To save you some time, I’m going to quote page 5 where she gives the bottom line about fiber additives:
- Isolated inulin, polydextrose, and maltodextrin are soluble fibers but they’re not gummy, so they probably don’t lower blood cholesterol or blood sugar.
- Isolated oat fiber and soy fiber are insoluble, so they may help keep you regular. Polydextrose may also help, but inulin and maltodextrin don’t seem to.
So Fibersol-2 / Maltodextrin may help the nutritional label look good, but it doesn’t look like it will blood cholesterol, blood sugar, or help keep you regular.
The question is whether MonaVie will address this issue? Or will they do what they’ve always done in the past and pretend it doesn’t exist?
This post involves:
... and focuses on:
Posted by MonaVie Scam on March 20, 2011 in
MonaVie Nutrition
Editor’s Note: I had this article submitted to me by a friend. I publish it because I have seen numerous cases of similar circumstances. The lies about the ORAC score are common. I’ve heard the anthrax thing as well, but I have not seen any distributors put their money where their mouth is and subject themselves to anthrax to back up the claim. The claim about the lack of cancer in Brazil is particularly appalling… of course Brazil isn’t a cancer-free zone. Now on with the story:
I teach a Bible class for college-aged students. About a year ago, one of my students (we’ll call him “A”) came to me and said he had something he needed to talk to me about. “A” was a pretty level-headed kid who loved cars and wanted to open up his own auto shop. When he came over to my house a few days later, my wife and I were treated to a sales pitch to become MonaVie distributors. At that point we had both heard of MonaVie, but didn’t know anything specific. “A” started telling us about this fantastic “business opportunity†that was going to make him rich with minimal effort. He asked me, didn’t I hate having to go to work and have a boss and be told what to do? I said no, not really, I like my job. He told us that basically you are a sucker if you “trade time for money” working a regular 40 hour a week job. His entire pitch was all about the business, leadership, being motivated, and achieving your dreams. He hardly mentioned the juice at all and when pressed he told us that the juice was for “personal consumption†and it “wasn’t about the product.†Of course this screamed scam to us and we politely declined. I told “A” that I would much rather help him get his own auto shop started than sign up to sell MonaVie with him.
Fast-forward a year…I had become increasingly concerned about “A,” especially after learning that he dropped out of auto mechanic school (although honestly I don’t know if he quit before or after becoming involved with MonaVie). But he seemed happy and asked his girlfriend (who was also part of our college Bible class) to marry him, so I thought perhaps he was working hard and was in the minority that would be successful at MLM. However, sirens went off when my wife and I learned that they were planning to go to a MonaVie “business meeting” right after their wedding. I also discovered that one of his groomsmen was his “sponsor,” and from there found out about TEAM. When we approached “A” and his wife “B” about going to a meeting on their wedding night, they told us that it showed their commitment to the business, and that they would be an inspiration to their business partners. When my wife and I suggested that their commitment to their marriage might be more important, they informed us that we didn’t understand.
Now let me tell you something about me – my wife will be the first to tell you that I think I know everything, so being told I “don’t understand” something is the quickest way to get me fired up. I have two degrees in physics, and because of my interest in finance and the stock market I read the Wall Street Journal every day. So I am not uneducated and I believe I have learned a thing or two about business from the WSJ. My wife is also smarter than the average bear, and she loves research, so she set out to dig up everything she could find about MonaVie and TEAM (and found this website in the process). Sirens again went off after I found out that “A” and “B” had been pitching MonaVie and TEAM to the college students at our church under the guise of getting together for Christian fellowship. As their teacher, I felt it was my responsibility to make sure the students were not being preyed upon, so I asked “A” and “B” to stop. They refused, and once again I was told I didn’t understand, that I didn’t understand business, and that I needed to come to a meeting to learn about the business. So I decided to attend a meeting, and this is what I found…
I won’t say the speaker’s name, as he is very rich and could hire a much better lawyer than me, and I get the impression he would sue me for just writing honestly about him. Instead I will call him “C.” A quick Google of his name reveals that he has been involved with TEAM and Orrin Woodward since they were part of Quixtar. Orrin Woodward’s blog lists “C” as having achieved “Founders Emerald” by the end of 2004. This is worth noting because “C” at one point claimed he was making half a million dollars a year when he first got involved with MonaVie, and at another time claimed that his motivation for getting involved with TEAM was to buy shoes – he was working 80-90 hours per week and “getting nowhere.”
He opened up the meeting with economic facts about how bad the economy is right now and the unemployment rate. All valid facts, but pretty irrelevant. There were no MonaVie bottles on display, however the IDS was displayed, as well as an ORAC bar chart. Referring to the IDS, “C” said that the mean income of people who “take the business seriously” was $250,000 per year. He said only 13% take the business seriously. There was constant repetition about listening to people who are successful, not people who want to trap you in a job with a “ceiling.” If you have a traditional 40 hour a week job, your income will plateau, and can go no further than the “ceiling.” There was also a fair amount of college-bashing, with a comment made about how college students don’t know what they want, and don’t typically end up working in the field they entered college to study. The price of buying TEAM materials was also compared to buying college textbooks (something “A” had told me before). He said you would spend $60-75 on TEAM materials per month, the equivalent of buying one college textbook every other month. The price of monthly conventions or weekly meetings was not included. National conventions were pitched as costing at least $500 including travel which is necessary so that the new person can best learn what they are doing right from the start.
The entire meeting was focused on selling the plan, not teaching people how to sell. In fact “C” did not even explain how you make exceptional money with TEAM – he said you should ask the person who invited you to the meeting to explain it, or rather how to “set up your dreams.” “C” did say if you are not a salesman, change. If you don’t know anyone, go meet people or ask your relatives. He talked a little bit about how you can make money by getting other people to sign up, the binary pay plan, and “spill-over” effect. He also congratulated a new “power player” and explained that a power player was a person who had 10 people on his left leg and 5 people on his right leg and half of them were “on system.” He referred to Michael Dell’s 3 C’s (Content, Commerce, and Community), explaining that the first two were MonaVie, and the third, community, was TEAM. This was humorous to me because community refers to a customer base, so “C” was saying that TEAM is MonaVie’s customer base. In fact he did say that the juice was for “self consumption.”
What was said about MonaVie was outrageous. “C” said that a study was done on (M)mun where they injected anthrax into cattle, and the MonaVie (M)mun cured the anthrax. My wife dug up a link on the Wellmune page to a study about the anthrax-protective effects of some of Wellmune’s components. Even if the study is valid, “protective” does not equal “cure.” “C” also claimed that there has never been a single reported case of cancer in the history of Brazil. He elaborated, “Did God create a ‘no cancer zone’ in Brazil?” He never specifically said that it was because of the acai berry, the audience was left to draw their own conclusion. At the end of his “Brazil is cancer-free” speech he mumbled, “According to a Brazilian I know,” thus allowing himself to be blameless once his statements were found to be false – which was easily done with a quick Google search of “cancer rate in Brazil.” He also told a story of a young woman with two young kids who was diagnosed with cancer and given 3-6 months to live, and implied that she has survived for 9 months now using MonaVie and prayer. During one of the breaks “B,” who is diabetic, told me that since she has been using MonaVie her blood sugar levels have gone down, which is a very dangerous thing to do given the legal restrictions on medical claims that the FTC enforces and which are the law of the land.
He referred to the ORAC chart, and talked about how your body rots from the inside out without antioxidants. He said MonaVie contained 4,000 ORAC in 4 ounces, and you would have to consume nine boxes of blueberries, or 4,000 tomatoes to get the equivalent. He said he did not know of anything in a grocery store that would be as good in delivering ORAC, especially if you consider the cost of buying the 5 to 13 fruits every day as a substitute. I looked up blueberries on www.oracvalues.com, and they have an ORAC score of 6,552 per 100 grams (about 3.5 oz). The box of blueberries sitting in my fridge right now is 16 ounces, or 7 days’ worth of MonaVie, if you use their value of 4,000. This box of blueberries cost at most $5 if you buy during the off-season. One 25 oz bottle of MonaVie lasts a week if you are drinking 4 ounces every day, so at $32 for the distributor price of one bottle of MonaVie Original, my blueberries cost $0.71 per day for the same ORAC as MonaVie’s $4.57 per day. I also looked up tomatoes, and depending on variety, a fresh tomato has an ORAC score of 367-546 per 100 grams. This would mean you would need about 10 average-sized tomatoes to equal a days’ worth of MonaVie, not 4,000 tomatoes. Also, simple math will tell you that in order to need 4,000 of something to equal a value of 4,000, that something must have a value of 1. Nothing on the ORAC values website has a value of one – the lowest value they list is 82 per 100 grams for a lime. It is also worth noting that when I talked to “B” about the ORAC claims during a break in the meeting, she admitted she didn’t really know what ORAC meant, despite having attended these weekly meetings for at least a year.
I did not hear much about religion, other than that you should sign up so you can make a lot of money and give it to your church or a charity. “C” said his wife uses their profits to help the poor in Africa. He said the MORE Project has saved 9-year-old girls from having to work “on her back” like her mother did, and “things like this happen everywhere in the world because we don’t have enough money to get them out of it,” implying that if you turn down the pitch you don’t care about 9-year-old girls working on their backs. He also talked about all the lives they were saving for God. After saying next to nothing about how the plan actually worked, “C” still expected people to join on the spot with a $200 sign-up fee on the lowest level – don’t worry, they take credit cards. I can’t tell you if anyone actually signed up that night, as I was done after two hours and left. I told my friends to go home and look up ORAC values for themselves. I hope they do, but they probably forgot about it the minute after I said it.
Got a story to tell about TEAM? You could leave it in the comments below, but I highly recommend Submitting an article to sister site – TeamScam.com, where people can respond and support you.
This post involves:
... and focuses on:
Posted by Guest Author on March 20, 2011 in
MonaVie and TEAM
Frequent commenter Vogel contributes this important piece of information (slightly reworked for readability):
Fraud-Artist Spotlight: Jim Janssen (ID# 1986314)
Here’s a fraudulent quote from Monavie scammer du jour Jim Janssen, one-time maintenance man at JC Penny and Target in Kansas City, MO (which obviously makes him supremely qualified to make medical claims about snakeoil fruit juice):
You can see the claims here:: “Monavie acai berry drink is so packed with glucosamine that it has helped those with fibromyalgia, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer”
Here is his MonaVie Page and his
Linked In Page.
Glucosamine has never even been postulated to have beneficial effects for any of those conditions. Who would be foolish enough to believe such nonsense? Does Jim? Or is he purposely lying and breaking the law just to make a buck? Let’s get those FDA reports out!
In addition to sending those FDA reports out, please feel free to Tweet him or send him a Linked In message that he should stop breaking the law and scamming people in an effort to line his own pockets.
This post involves:
... and focuses on:
Posted by MonaVie Scam on March 20, 2011 in
Evil MonaVie Distributors
I thought I’d use this article to sum up some of points about MonaVie and Dr. Louis Niles. I use doctor lightly as he’s an naturopathic doctor. Wikipedia currently defines Naturopathy as:
“an alternative medical system that focuses on natural remedies and the body’s vital ability to heal and maintain itself. Naturopathic philosophy favors a holistic approach and minimal use of surgery and drugs. Naturopathy comprises many different treatment modalities of varying degrees of acceptance by the medical community; diet and lifestyle advice may be substantially similar to that offered by non-naturopaths, and acupuncture may help reduce pain in some cases, while homeopathy is often characterized as pseudoscience or quackery. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been advocated as an appropriate methodology for determining the scientific basis of naturopathy. Naturopaths have opposed vaccination based in part on the early philosophies which shaped the profession.”
I’ve bolded some parts to make it easier to differentiate Naturopathy doctors who specialist in it, known as NDs, from doctors who specialize in Medicine, known as MDs. Wikipedia also hosts some criticism of Naturopathy, and lists why many feel it is a quackery.
I’m not sure where Dr. Louis Niles went to school, but an archive of his website (including this page) provides no clues.
In videos he Dr. Louis Niles makes Illegal Medicinal Claims… all while misleading people by dressing in the surgical scrubs to make it seem like he’s a medical doctor when he does no surgery.
That’s nothing compared to Dr. Lou Niles and His Sexual Crimes.
Despite all this it seems like Lou Niles is still a MonaVie Distributor.
This post involves:
... and focuses on:
Posted by MonaVie Scam on March 19, 2011 in
Dr. Lou Niles
Is MonaVie the Fastest Company to $1 Billion Dollars in Revenue?
I often hear claims of it being the fastest to $1 billion in revenue. True?
I’ve seen quite a few people in my previous thread comment that MonaVie is the fastest growing company in the United States. Others say that it is the fastest company to $1 billion in revenue (See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Clicking on any of those links will show that people are using this information as justification of MonaVie’s value.
I haven’t been able to find documentation of the $1 billion in sales. Is this independently audited or is this Monavie reporting the numbers themselves? If it’s independently audited, I’d like to see the paper work. Since Monavie is a private company, I suspect that this number isn’t audited (they aren’t required to). If the only source of this information is MonaVie and unaudited, perhaps it’s a case where they are trying to take advantage of the adage, “Nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd.” Are they trying to drive sales by pretending that sales are already made?
MonaVie gives discounts for big bulk purchases. If this $1 billion number is to be believed, does it include product that is in distributor’s hands waiting to actually be sold? MonaVie probably counts it as a sale since they’ve made their money. However, supplying distributors with product is different from selling it in the traditional model. We should note the difference, because if a product is sitting in a distributor’s warehouse, it’s what I’d call “sold.”
In another note, One MonaVie distributor suggested that I become a distributor and buy a year’s worth of MonaVie in advance to get the best price. If I buy a year’s worth, does MonaVie amortize those sales over the span of a year? I would guess not.
Another thought… YouTube was around for 18 months when it was sold for a 1.65B valuation. I know that’s not a revenue number, but if it decided to give away $1.50 worth of stock to everyone that wanted to give it $1, it could have had a billion dollars in revenue.
This post involves:
... and focuses on:
Posted by MonaVie Scam on March 19, 2011 in
MonaVie Sales
MonaVie and Napster seem to have a lot in common
Here’s the Napster case description directly from Wikipedia:
The music industry made the following claims against Napster:
(1) That its users were directly infringing the plaintiff’s copyright;
(2) That Napster was liable for contributory infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright; and
(3) That Napster was liable for vicarious infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright.
The court found Napster liable on all three claims.
Napster lost the case in the District Court and appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Although the Ninth Circuit found that Napster was capable of commercially significant non-infringing uses, it affirmed the District Court’s decision. On remand, the District Court ordered Napster to monitor the activities of its network and to block access to infringing material when notified of that material’s location. Napster was unable to do this, and so shut down its service in July 2001.
Let’s see what we have here:
1) The company’s users were directly breaking the law
2) The company was liable for contributing to them breaking the law
3) The company was liable for vicariously breaking the law
The company went back and said that it’s product can be used in significant number of legitimately legal cases or which the court agreed on the condition that they stop the illegal uses. The company was unable to do this and shut down it’s business.
Now go back to the above synopsis of Napster and substitute “The company” for MonaVie. Doesn’t that seem ominous for MonaVie? What’s different? If I were a MonaVie distributor, I’d be very careful not to count on the income stream to feed my family.
The CEO in a Newsweek already said that it is unable to filter out the illegal activity:
Meanwhile an 18-person compliance department investigates distributors suspected of making false claims—although with a million sales people on the books, that’s easier said than done. “It’s next to impossible,” Larsen concedes, “like herding cats.”
This post involves:
... and focuses on:
Posted by MonaVie Scam on March 18, 2011 in
MonaVie - Napster
Stumble
Reddit
Digg
Del.icio.us
Propeller