Is MonaVie the Fastest Company to $1 Billion Dollars in Revenue?

If you read Inc. 500, you will see that MonaVie is the #1 fastest growing privately held company under food and beverage category. #3 in revenue and #18 overall.

Is Inc.500 good enough source of information for you?

Regarding the Inc 500 issue, just go to http://inc.com/inc5000/2009/the-full-list.html and you can see the overall listing, with MonaVie at #18. You can jump to other categories from there to see MonaVie’s #1 ranking in food and beverage and #3 ranking in revenue. I’m not saying it’s the fastest to $1B ever, but it still has displayed very impressive growth.

Regarding what constitutes a sale, why would you judge MonaVie differently from any other company selling consumer products? Does coke only get to count it as a “sale” when somebody actually purchases it from the grocery store? No, that counts as the stores sale. Coke counts it as their sale as soon as it is paid for and shipped from their facility. MonaVie is no different. It counts as a sale for them once the distributor (the “store”) purchases it. Beyond that, it is the distributors sale. People need to realize that this is no different than a miniaturized version of any retail outlet or franchise. Almost every consumer supplier purchases their goods from the manufacturer, then resells them at an increased price. Network marketing is no different except there is no store front, and you get paid the companies advertising budget, instead of it all going to multi-million dollar super bowl spots and sunday paper ads. Plus you have the added benefit, if you like something, of telling others about it and receiving a portion of that advertising expense yourself. It’s not a scam, just an affordable way to start a business that, with some effort, could have a huge payback. Robert Kiyosaki, one of the financial masterminds of our day, even endorses network marketing in his amazing book “The Cashflow Quadrant”.

True, Coke and Monavie are not the same product, or even similar. Coke contains massive amounts of high fructose corn syrup and other ingredients that are damaging to your body, while Monavie is just fruit, in juice form. However, you missed my point regarding the method of counting a sale. If somebody goes to costco and buys a whole case of raviolis, does Chef Boyardee not get to count the sale as long as it’s sitting in the pantry waiting to be consumed? My point with that example is that regardless of what you consider to be a sale, it doesn’t matter, because Monavie, as with any business out there, counts it as a sale as soon as it is “sold” to the distributor, regardless what the distributor, be it an individual OR store, does with it. You can’t pick and choose the standards with which you judge businesses just because you don’t like one or the other. A sale is a sale.
Also, you are running in different circles than I am obviously because I know many people who order and drink or share the juice constantly and never have a garageful just sitting around gathering dust. Don’t assume all people match up with your small circle of friends and fellow skeptics.
In addition, your scam point misses as well. $45 a bottle, if you by it retail, is not cheap, I’ll agree. However, that doesn’t make it a scam. Just expensive and, in your opinion at least, overpriced. People buy way overpriced shirts, jeans, stocks, wine, whatever. Doesn’t make them scams, just expensive. Something is worth whatever anybody is willing to pay for it. People pay more for a worn out pair of jeans from A&F when they could get a nice, crisp, hole-free, fresh-dyed pair from Walmart for a fraction of the price. Does A&F have to scientifically prove their jeans are 5 times better then the Walmart jeans to avoid being a scam? I imaginie you will try to point out that Jeans and juice are 2 different items, and that would be a very solid comeback…….as the coke one was. My point being that value is in the eye of the purchaser, not you. If somebody feels it helps their aches or whatever, and they can enjoy life better, then it’s worth it to them. It’s a less expensive habit than a pack+ of smokes a day and at least this won’t kill you.
Also, if you pay attention to the IDS you will note that last year 14,255 made at least an average of $4000 extra and many made much more, even getting into the millions of dollars. No, not eerybody does make money at this, but as with any job or business, the ones who make it are the ones who bothered to put in the time and effort to learn the business, improve themselves, and consistently share it with others and grow it. Many people do not make it in this industry, not because it’s a scam, but because they are looking for a quick fix or get-rich-quick scheme and aren’t willing to put in the 2-5 years of effort to grow it properly. I personally know several people here in central Ohio who are making upwards of $100,000 after consistently working this business for 1-2 years. Normal, everyday hardworking people. I also know several who will never make a penny with it. The difference is not when they got in, but the effort level involved. Most businesses fail within the first year,and even more within the first 5. Also, at any business, let’s say Walmart, people are hired, told they can make it to manager and beyond if they work hard, and never make it beyond assistant head-cashier or something. It’s not a scam. It just means it takes hard work to be successful. This isn’t an easy business.
Also, regarding Robert Kiyosaki, it sounds like you got all your info on him off John Reeds website…….on which he tries to sell his book by slamming a more popular author. Who cares if the “rich dad” character is fiction. The lessons still the same. In addition, network marketing is endorsed by fellow millionaires Donald Trump, and Warren Buffet. I suppose you think they are financial idiots too, though.
You say you are protecting people, but I wonder how many people you have scared away from this idea. People who could have been successful in this business and made, at the very least, a nice supplementary income that maybe could have been enough to avoid a home foreclosure or avoid a car being repossessed. How many lives have you set back with your scare tactics and hatred to those individuals finding success through alternative paths? Sleep well. I will, knowing I am offering people an alternative to a lifetime of slavery to low wages and long hours.

WOW are you serious? Anthony had such a good response that you could barely even respond back to what he was trying to tell you. You don’t listen, thats a big problem. Like anthony said, ‘the value is in the eye of the purchaser’. Why don’t you just leave it at that? My grandma drinks the pulse and has helped my family a lot in high cholesterol problems. 300 down to 100 something. Thats huge. Doctor himself said it was a miracle! monavie made it on the news and a different baby boomers were talking very highly about how monavie made them have more energy and able to walk and get better sleep. It is not $45 a bottle when you get a case Get a combo of original and active 4 bottles and it’s only $140 shipped. I’m not even 21 years old and have been doing this business for 3 months now. My 1st month i got my investment back plus profit just from a couple bonuses and commissions all from helping people. The juice is amazing, people drink it because they feel it and want to share it. Why do you have so much against that? It’s rediculous how people like you DO indeed scare people away from posting garbage information like this. 0-billion in 3 years. Nothing or no company has done that! 18 out of how many million other companies! Can you believe that with us only being 5 years old or so??? the other 17 on top are companies that have been in business for over 24 years. Is that not enough quick growth for you? There so much information out there that you don’t even know and your over here running your mouth like you know it all. You should really get your facts straight before you start calling monaVie a scam.

Are you against newtwork marketing in general? Have you targeted other companies besides monavie? Tell me that. WHY Monavie?? Why is your Dr. Alex Schauss paper link doesn’t work and nothing is found? You have all these assumptions everywhere don’t you notice that? your so against monavie that you’ll put facts everywhere just to talk down on monavie. The main fact is that it has helped thousands of people and your going to tell everybody that you know for a damn FACT that it’s the placebo effect?!?! really?!? get your head out of your ass. Forget all the numbers! It HAS HELPED PEOPLE physically and you can’t doing anything about that. You are the one making false claims.

distributor1,

I’m not against MLM or network marketing. I’m against companies that can’t objectively justify the value of their product when compared to competitors. I’m also against companies that put their distributors in that situation giving them incentive to make illegal medicinal claims for the product.

My link to Alex Schauss’ paper doesn’t work because AIMBR changed where the document was located on their site. There’s nothing I can do about that. If you doubt my claims about Dr. Schauss, see Dr. Alex Schauss, ORAC, and Freeze-Dried Acai and please make your specific points to counter mine there.

Yes, distributor1, I use facts to back up the points I make. It’s called making an effective argument.

The fact is that the placebo effect has helped millions of people PHYSICALLY over the years. However, you don’t have to pay for the placebo effect – it’s a feeling in your head. You shouldn’t have to pay thousands and thousands for your family for it.

Why don’t you tell me what makes MonaVie different than the placebo effect?

I would have to agree that the product sales to distributors need to be counted toward their sales. How many people have bought several cases of Pepsi and stored it, or extra canned goods, or extra anything. You would not dream of saying to those companies – Oh wait those pepsi sales don’t count because they didn’t drink it this week. That would negate any sales that the various wholesale clubs and Sams Clubs out there that only deal in large quantities. I guess that means Sams Club has zero sales.
Also, I have never heard any reps for a $40 per bottle product suggest that someone buy a years supply. That would be several thousand dollars of product.
As far as MonaVie making potentially false monetary claims-Even if they only did 10% of the billion-would a $100,000,000 company (let alone a $bil) really be stupid enough to make those false claims and jeopardize their future?
I think not.

@ Anthony:

You said:

“People pay more for a worn out pair of jeans from A&F when they could get a nice, crisp, hole-free, fresh-dyed pair from Walmart for a fraction of the price. Does A&F have to scientifically prove their jeans are 5 times better then the Walmart jeans to avoid being a scam?”

They absolutely would need to prove their jeans were scientifically better than other jeans on the market IF they made a ridiculous claim like “Wear our jeans and watch the cellulite melt off your thighs!!” or “Wear our jeans and your ovarian cancer will disappear!!”

You see, your comparison doesn’t translate.

Also, I would assume that A&F jeans isn’t telling consumers to buy the jeans, wear them for about a week, at which point in time you will need to purchase a new pair because all the healing power of the initial pair of jeans is now used up. The jeans are usually a one time purchase, whereas MonaVie juice is a consumable that needs to be repurchased every 4 days or so, if one is drinking it as recommended.

Your efforts would be better spent researching MonaVie’s price to value ratio, and the science that is sorely lacking behind MonaVie’s faux super juice.

Nice Blog!, My tide box says it gets my cloths clean. But I tell you, there’s been a couple times now that it did not get my cloths clean. Can we start a blog like this one, as you should agree these companies should be held to what they Claim!
STV

Wow well after reading this site and the lazyman and money site, I feel a lot better about my decision to quit being a distributor of this stuff. I drank the stuff and honestly felt no better or different but there was a nice 143 dollar hole in my bank account . The whole thing seemed kinda shady not to mention the way the tried to play on my Chrisitan beliefs and had an almost self-righteous air about how they give back and how its a “God-blessed” company. That threw up some major red flags for me and after I learned it was based in Salt Lake City, Utah (mormon capital of the world) I got out of that thing quick, fast and in a hurry.

Why not be against MLM as such?

Many of us dislike being called up at home or stopped by a salesman on my way to the shop, juices or phones does not matter, our time is precious and I personally choose both what to buy and when to purchase.
Have never attended a sales party at a private home, but like going to the markets for a look…

I am the costumer, the companies live from my buys, not my sales…

There is an idea the MLM companies earn from something else than the products they let their salesmen distribute:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJOeS6im864

Is this correct, anyone, even within this juice distributer MV?

MonaVie isn’t providing much in the way of health education. If your idea of health is to drink four ounces of juice a day, well that’s not going to change your health. An apple is just as convenient as juice. Grapes are also pretty convenient. If you are stuck on juice, V8 Fusion is as convenient (well more convenient since you can get it at almost any grocery store)… and it does it for a much lower cost meaning that you can get more good in your body than 2/3s of a serving of fruit.

MonaVie doesn’t help with America’s obesity problem any more than V8 Fusion, Tropicana orange juice, or Welch’s grape juice. So America’s obesity problem, while true, is not relevant to the discussion.

MonaVie may give people hope, but it’s a false hope. It’s like depending on Santa Claus to get you out of debt. It’s not helpful… it’s harmful.

It’s not interesting that medical professionals have cancer. People get cancer. No one knows of a way to prevent people from getting cancer. There’s no reason to mention MonaVie and cancer in the same discussion such as this. There is no relation between the two… you might as well be writing about transmissions.

MonaVie doesn’t provide opportunities to families that lost their jobs. Drinking MonaVie is a $5000 burden for a family of four. If you lose your job, you are better off having saved that money rather than having spent it on juice.

So, Ray, your answer to the health crisis is to sell consumers fruit punch for $30-$45 a bottle?

Fruit punch that will give you 12 grams of sugars for every 4 ounces consumed. Fruit punch that contain the preservatives sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate.

I think your remedy is worst than the disease.

Ray, you don’t “take” $40.00 grape juice.
You “drink” it.
You “take” medicine.
What medicinal properties does MonaVie have?
Where is the FDA approval for this “medicine” and the medical claims you are making?
Oh…there is none, because it’s just grape juice. So what you are saying here is illegal.

And you’ve also just violated your MonaVie contract by not providing us with your name and distributor ID number.

Healthcare costs, H1N1 vaccines, chocolate mochas, sugar and salt have absolutely nothing to do with Monavie. I understand full well why you try to derail the discussion with these red herrings — you can’t say a damn thing to exonnerate your participation in a corrupt pyramid scheme designed to promote a worthless product and a doomed buisness opportunity.

You make the ridiculous claims that Monavie makes you sleep better, gives you more energy, and curbs your appetite and then put the onus on us to disprove it. That’s a back asswards, intellectually dishonest tactic. I can think of several explanations, beginning with the placebo effect, but the most likely one is that you are simply lying, as everyone else in your organization seems to do on a chronic basis. They have been caught telling countless lies, so why should we believe that you are any different?

Is there a reason that we should believe you instead of arriving at the more obvious conclusion that you are a just another conniving liar like all the others, particualalry when you circumvent the company’s rules and fail to post your distributor ID#, as required by your contract.

Where’s that distributor ID# Ray? Are you really that ashamed of your “business” that you can’t bring yourself to honor the terms of the contract you signed?

Ray, no one is blaming MonaVie for any widespread U.S. health problems. We are simply saying that MonaVie isn’t the solution. I’m not blaming Welch’s grape juice for it either, and it isn’t the solution. One product is not the cause or the solution to health problems. If you want to help people be more healthy, educate people about eating fruit or going to the gym. It would be nice if we could just take a 4 ounce juice and magically everything would be better, but that’s simply not the case.

The $5/day Starbucks has been widely discussed by David Bach in The Latte Factor. In that book he makes a strong argument that it’s perhaps the biggest reason that many Americans are in debt today. They don’t realize that $5 a day for each of the 4 people in the average family is $7300 a year. That’s after-tax dollars. You can give your household income a $10,000 raise by cutting out the “$5/day either way” mentality. In addition to this, because MonaVie has no caffeine (except for eMV versions) and doesn’t quench any thirst (with such small serving sizes), people are still likely to spend ANOTHER $5 on Starbucks or other options. MonaVie didn’t fix the problem it made it twice as bad.

MonaVie’s sugar content, ounce for ounce, is within a gram or two of the $3 V8 Fusion Acai Berry. I can pour almost any juice into a 2 ounce shot glass and claim that it doesn’t have much sugar either.

If you’ve been reading about the placebo effect then you answered all those questions yourself. Some call it the power of positive thinking.

Even if no one explained it to you, the placebo effect can take place. For instance, the serving size is similar to medicines. The purple color is similar to many medicines. The fact that you mentioned it was expensive also places a role: Read more about the price-placebo effect.

Then you go on to say that “someone took the time to share with you the idea”, also plays into it. Does anyone take the time to share with the idea that an apple is anything more than an apple? No.

And that’s all the stuff that’s obvious when people don’t even say anything special about MonaVie.

Monavie scam. Finally a caring response. Understand, I am not trying to cost people more money. I believe that I am helping as do you. I just don’t believe all your data is right—my choice. Some of my clients have done exactly what you said, go back to welch’s and other cheaper products—their choice. But beneath all that, they got more health conscious—good for our society as a whole.

I have changed my budget to fit this product in, but I can see your point that people will go out and still spend their money on the other things, and hence, it could cost them more. I know some people who look at this thing like a magic bullet, not changing their lifestyle and drinking it like it will solve all their problems—not the case. At the end of the day, people always reserve the right to make bad decisions.

Ray,
You may find this to be educational.
http://monaviemediacenter.com/blogs/5-tips-every-monavie-distributor-needs-to-know-about-the-new-ftc-guidelines/

Ray, the error in your reasoning is obvious.

MonaVie is considered a supplemntal food/beverage. Even after drinking MonaVie, the person consuming a Starbucks will continue drinking the Starbucks. However, now his thinking is “I’m drinking my MonaVie, so my nutritional needs are met.”

This gives him a false sense of security, and he becomes complacent.

The difference is he’s consuming an additional 12 grams of sugars per day. His nutritional needs are not met. He’s fooling himself.

Adding 4 ounces of fruit punch for $5.00 a day isn’t doing anyone any favors.

Ray,

You can’t express MonaVie’s “affects on you.” It’s great that you have this opinion, but you can’t express it. Sorry, those are MonaVie’s own rules. You have to stick to the typical results that one would expect. There is a need for posting your name and ID according to MonaVie’s Social Media policy. Again, this is MonaVie’s own rules, not ours.

I think I have tried grape juice before. It’s delicious. It’s pretty unusual to think that no one has tried grape juice before. It may not be the most common beverage, but it’s fairly common to have several brands in almost any grocery store.

Ray, the “try it for 3 to 6 months as recommended” is another red herring – are you going to rent my broken down Yugo for at $100 a day for 6 months as I recommend? How do you know that renting my Yugo wouldn’t provide great benefits to you? Are you basing your knowledge on not renting my Yugo on others feeding you information about my Yugo? Since you don’t mind losing money, you can probably learn a great lesson from renting my Yugo. When you are done renting mine, perhaps Vogel and Candace have a car as well.

Clearly the “Just try it” argument fails.

There are tons of multi-million dollar marketings out there. Is the company Monavie making money? Yes, but you have to scam people just to make money. To me, that is just plain wrong!

I refuse to promote a product out there claiming false information especially when it comes to people’s health. It is funny how no one from Monavie can come out with proof that their product is better than a product that can be simply found at any grocery or supermarkets.

Ask yourself this question:

Tropicana Fruit Punch – $2.69 / $19.45 for case of 12

or

1 Bottle of Monavie – $40!

Hmmm……. This is a tough question!

FDA approve for medicinal purpose? Ummm… No!

And still Ray refuses to honor his MonaVie code of conduct or contract by following MonaVie’s own rules and regulations that require him to post his name and distributor number on each and every online comment he makes. Instead, he leaves….like all the other MonaVie distributors before him.
Surprising.

Why? Because he simply cannot argue with the facts and has no respect at all for the company he is involved with, not even enough respect to follow that company’s rules. Shameful.

I’ll let other people dissect the problems with Ray’s latest comments, and there are more than a couple. I am not naive enough to think that Ray has left off reading the comments here.
Cowardly.

But it’s just so damn purple and acai-ish — how could it not cure cancer and turn uneducated paupers into mega-millionaires?

Speaking of the IRS, I bet that a lot of the distributors are scamming the tax man too, for example, by declaring their juice as a business expense and writing off the cost of sales tools. Brig Hart’s bank account is no doubt being padded at taxpayers’ expense. I would love to see Monavie and the MORE Project subjected to an IRS audit. They probably won’t be claiming that they are a billion-dollar company after the auditors come to inspect the books.

You can make a nice reward by notifying the IRS through their whistleblower program.
http://www.irs.gov/compliance/article/0,,id=180171,00.html

For the people who think monavie is a huge scam you are absolutly wrong. You are understanding the significance of this company let alone this whole industry of Network Marketing. First of all to the ones that are complaining about the price. Why is it that all of you can buy your Latte at starbucks for $3-5 but cant afford to put something in your body that will help. Im not sure what the ORAC score of the whole bottle is but I gurantee what your putting in your body is much healthier than a fattening sugary latte you get on a daily bases. MonaVie is the only juice with the acai berry to have a patent on freeze drying the fruit so it keeps it nutrients. It has live enzymes in the juice. So for anyone saying you can go buy that crap the store you cant, Not any other juice has live acai berry enzymes in it PERIOD.

and for the industry like i was saying. Go to any large monavie event and you will understand what is happening. THey are restoring marriages and families. They are allowing people to make a second income in a very inexpensive way. What business can you start with a $135 overhead and potentially make an endless amount of money. FOr those of you saying that there is no way how much people are making that much money. Here is the monavie disclosure statement. Made by a third party and all 21 attorney generals had to sign it for its proof. http://media.monavie.com/pdf/corporate/income_disclosure_statement.pdf

Ya it took them a lot of work to get to those positions but it is very east to do it you just commit and do it. Out of the top 500 Income earners in the network marketing industry 250+ are from monavie. go here for the list: http://www.businessforhome.org/2009/05/mlm-500-top-earners-update-v3/

All of you that are against monavie are because you are closed minded individuals that nothing has ever gone your way in life, i say may god bless you that your life gets better and maybe open your eyes just a little. Why would there be so much buzz about monavie if it wasnt working, if the products were not working they wouldnt have hit the 1 billion dollar mark. Get all all your facts straight before you try to deliver your comebacks.

Getting back to the discussion about the IRS, I just found something that confirms that the company is encouraging distributors to take questionable deductions on their taxes.

According to a sales support tools pitch by Brig Hart/R3Global:

“MP3 players have really come down in price (the generic ones) so make the investment in you, take it off your taxes, and hire your kids/grandkids to help you download them!
http://www.teamlifegi.com/uploads/2/7/0/6/2706882/virtual_training_sign_up_word.doc

This is what I have long expected is going on in Monavieland — distributors are being told that they can deduct the cost of sales tools from their taxes. The IRS has very strict rules for what can legally be deducted as a business expense. Most distributors wouldn’t legally qualify for any business deductions relating to Monavie because it doesn’t qualify as a legitimate business and they don’t have profits from which to deduct expenses. For the majority of distributors, Monavie would be considered as a hobby buisness by the IRS, at best.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=169490,00.html

I also suspect that distributors are taking, and being encouraged to take, other inappropriate deductions, such as for the cost of the juice itself. Looks like a big tax swindle going here, whereby Monavie and sales tools vendors like R3Global are directly benefiting as a result of distributors cheating on their taxes.

Steve D,

Please feel free to explain where the math is wrong. Explain what other factors are possible? Please use straight-forward math as I did.

I did not claim that MonaVie is using low-grade freeze-dried acai, just low-grade acai in general. The previou showed the proof of MonaVie’s suppliers are using acai that you can get in other places and that it isn’t highest quality.

Steve said: “There is no way you can determine how much Freeze dried Acai is being added based on your math formula.”

Are you ignorant of math and basic physical chemistry or are you a denialist who knows that what we are saying is true and are merely feigning ignorance? Maybe there’s no way for YOU to determine it, but for people who are educated it’s actually VERY easy.

Steve said: “How are you going to pass off as Fact that Monavie is only using 2% freeze dried Acai based on your mathematical formula. C’mon man there can be so many other factors or possibilities you have no idea about that simply isn’t’ fair at all and you are misleading people to fit your agenda.”

How? Because it’s a fact. I double-checked the calculations just now and they are accurate. The ORAC score of the acai powder is 1027 umol/ml and the ORAC of the juice is 22.7 umol/g (both values were reported in Monavie-sponsored research conducted by Schauss/AIBMR); therefore 1 ml of juice contains 0.022 g acai powder (0.022 g/ml is equal 2.2 g/100 ml), which is a 2.2% solution (the percentage concentration of a solution is expressed in g/100 ml).

Thus, it would be physically impossible for Monavie to contain more than 2.22% (weight/volume) acai powder. For convenience, these calculations assume equivalence between grams and milliliters; if they were adjusted based on the density of the juice, which is greater than the density of water (1 g/ml) due to dissolved solids, then the percentage acai would be even lower than 2.22%. Similarly, it is assumed that the other ingredients don’t contribute to the total ORAC score of the juice; if they did (which is highly likely), then again, the percentage of acai powder would have to be less than 2.22%.

“Also where is the proof that Monavie is using low grade freeze dried acai?”

Right here. Take the blinders off and read…
http://www.juicescam.com/monavie-uses-earthfruits-mid-grade-acai-and-doesnt-harvest-or-freeze-dry-their-own/comment-page-1/#comment-4569

Steve said: “The percent of solids in an açaí puree determines what application your using the açaí for. Twelve percent is most applicable for beverage products.”

BS. Based on what authority? While we are waiting for you to back that up, let’s just assume that what you said is true. Monavie used this shipment of 11% acai puree. So they even fall short of the artificially low bar you set.
http://www.importgenius.com/shipments/bela-acai-ind-e-com-polpas-de.html

Monavie also chooses not to use certified-organic acai puree even though many of their competitors use it and it is even available from the same supplier (Bela Iaca/Bela Acai) from which Monavie purchased their non-organic 11% acai.
http://www.importgenius.com/shipments/bela-iaca-industria-e-com-polpa-de.html

It should be very easy for you to now see why Monavie’s acai puree can be safely referred to as “low grade”. I can’t wait to see what type of pathetic impotent objection you’re going to bring to the table next. Or will you just change your the subject and your user name once more and start the tail chasing exercise all over again?

Steve D. The exact percentage of acai added to MonaVie isn’t as important as is the quality of the acai. The label only suggests that a blend of acai powder is added along with acai puree. It may be one tablespoon of powder for all we know.

We do know from simple analysis that the total amount of acai is low, and has a neglible positive benefit to the product.

The powder has an ORAC of 1,027 umoles/gm. The finished product (MonaVie) has an ORAC of 22.81 umoles/ml. Simple math tells us that the acai is extremely diluted.

Anthocyanins are the predominant polyphenol in acai, however we find only 0.095 mg/ml. in MonaVie. A very low level, indeed. To compare, an analysis of red grape juice shows a level of 0.77 mg/ml (Dietze, et al).

So, low ORAC, low anthocyanins equals low levels of acai. No further discussion is needed.

Your Starbucks example demonstrates your lack of ethics. Saying that other products are high-priced and aren’t good for you, so why can’t MonaVie be the same, is poor reasoning.

Just because a particular food is of poor value, does not validate the poor value of another food.

Your belief in the quality of MonaVie’s acai isn’t really significant here. We can believe a number of things, but that doesn’t make them true.

MonaVie knows of this site and is free to join the discussion. To date they have chosen not to. I do not wish to privately talk with MonaVie about the product. In only helps consumers to have a public discussion. When you talk to MonaVie, please ask them to be open in addressing these concerns. Thanks.

Please realize that when you talk to the product department at MonaVie, you may be getting half the story. For instance, they’ve talked in the past about the protein profile of acai and how it’s similar to that of an egg. MonaVie lists zero grams of protein on its label. So this is a case where MonaVie Product may be saying something to try to think you are getting quality – but careful examination shows the opposite.

MonaVie’s “clinical” study has much to be desired. It has been discussed at length here. The most obvious thing about the study is that it was done on very few people… The other obvious thing is that the trial required people to be completely void of almost all nutrition. Then they gave them some fruit juice in the form of MonaVie and showed some clinical information. A bite of an apple or a vitamin may have had even more dramatic effects. We don’t know because MonaVie didn’t have a comparison group.

The effects of glucosamine can be had very cheaply in a pill. For all we know, MonaVie just grabbed some glucosamine pills and crumbled them into the juice.

Whether you think the ORAC comparison’s and Men’s Journal tests are the tell or not isn’t the question. There is nothing in MonaVie’s favor. The juice has been around for 5 years, and you say that “further studies are needed.” Does that mean that MonaVie didn’t do any studies and just put some things together and hope it’s good? That’s what it sounds like.

I’ve written a few articles here on MonaVie Pulse and M-mun. I would like to spend more time writing about M-mun, but I’ve been busy. Check out the home page of this site for a summary of good reasons why not to buy MonaVie Pulse.

Steve said: “I personally don’t believe that Monavie is not using the best quality Acai that is available.”

You have been shown conclusively that they don’t use the best acai available (Monavie’s is no-organic, 11% solids). The details are easy to confirm and are right in front of your face, and yet you choose to believe otherwise. If that’s the intellectual level on which you operate, I see little hope that you will be able to bring any insight to this discussion.

Steve said: “Also Vogel I don’t believe those videos indicate that Monavie is using low grade freeze dried acai.”

I didn’t say that the videos indicated anything of the sort. I showed that Monavie re-edited the videos to remove footage showing a competitor’s acai processing plant, which Monavie had deceptively used in the original version to imply that it was their facility. They also re-edited and spliced in images of acai pickers in Monavie t-shirts. It’s an obvious con job.

Steve said: “Foodtech in the Report from Schauss wasn’t Monavie found to be strong in some specific anthocyanins.”

No, the opposite was true. Same for polyphenols, proanthocyanadins and ORAC.

Steve said: “Also food tech isn’t true that you need to do clinical trials to study the true antioxidant effect of a product?”

Not really. It should come as no surprise that a product that contains vitamin C (as does Monavie) has antioxidant effects. It’s a waste of money to show that the vitamin C does what it’s expected to. Monavie conducts this research so that it can be used to support fraudulent claims of medical benefits to people who don’t know how to interpret science research.

Steve said: “Monavie has tested it’s juice on humans unlike many many others Juices and it was found to be a success as far as penetrating the cells and having an significant effect on people’s antioxidant levels. The Orac tests are not cell based so they didn’t reveal the antioxidant difference because of that most likely.”

Wrong. In the same study they had Brunswick Labs run ORAC on blood serum and there was no change. They had to switched to an unvalidated BS assay (CAP-e). I suggest you go back and read the archives to learn of the many glaring flaws in this so-called “research” rather than wasting our time rehashing the issue.

Steve said: “Also noted was the Monavie attacked 3 different pro inflammatories and attacked them another positive thing.”

They have never conducted any research on inflammation.

“I find the Buisness leaders of Monavie to be ethical and honest that is my opinion of them you may have different and I know you have your particular reasons.”

That’s just another act of denial. You have been shown clearly that they are unethical and dishonest, and yet you simply choose to ignore it and believe otherwise. This forum isn’t about the airing of unsupportable beliefs; it’s about facts.

The discussion on the amount of acai in Monavie really should be taking place on one of hese two threads:
http://www.juicescam.com/how-much-acai-is-in-monavie
http://www.juicescam.com/monavie-uses-earthfruits-mid-grade-acai-and-doesnt-harvest-or-freeze-dry-their-own

But for the sake of continuity, I’ll just add one more comment on the subject here.

I just found this interesting document in which Monavie’s head of product development, Jeff Graham comments on the acai used in Monavie.
http://drinkitfeelitshareitwithus.org/Documents/Why_MonaVie.pdf

“Jeff said he had just returned from another trip to Brazil where he’d worked on arrangements for securing a plentiful supply of premium quality acai berries to accommodate the tremendous growth we are enjoying. In commenting about other acai products on the market, Jeff said that the maximum concentration of SOLIDS (skin and pulp) that can be made is 14% but that most acai blends being sold today contain only 3-5% solids — with the rest of the content being primarily water. Our MonaVie formulas use not only the highest possible percentage of solids, but ALSO include a substantial amount of powerful, freeze dried acai powder (Opti Acai).”

There is no evidence that Graham’s comment about the concentration of acai solids in their competitor’s products are true. We know for certain that at least 2 other companies that make acai drinks use acai puree with a higher percentage of solids (14%) and of better quality (organic) than that used in Monavie (at least as low as 11% and non-organic). In the finished product, Monavie has less than 2.2% (w/v) acai solids (from freeze-dried powder), so even if the competitors did sell acai with 3%-5% solids, as Graham contends, then their acai content would be roughly twice that of Monavie.

“This powder is exclusively available to MonaVie and NO other company. It comes from the Brazilian processing plant owned by Dr. Schauss and his partners”

But Schauss doesn’t own an acai processing plant in Brazil, and Monavie buys their acai puree from non-exclusive bulk manufacturer’s that will sell to anyone.

“Aside from the exclusivity significance of this, one of the core reasons why MonaVie is delivering such sensational results is that a maximum amount of the tremendously beneficial phytonutrients.”

Well, the acai isn’t available exclusively to Monavie; it’s low grade acai and they don’t even use enough of it to matter; it has been shown that the juice is low in phytonutrients. That takes us back to the obvious conclusion that these “sensational results” are BS; lies spun by Monavie execs like Graham, who also lie about the quality and amount of acai used in their products.

Steve said: “I don’t think this forum is all about facts but alot of things presented here may be just speculation of certain facts. You may have found some evidence but there may be certain reasons for some of the things you are finding that you have no idea about. Simply finding something and then concluding why Monavie is doing that does not make it fact to me.”

Here’s my perspective based on your conduct to date. You are not here to reason. You are not here to present facts. You purposely ignore and obfuscate facts. You seem to have done absolutely no research whatsoever. Your comments are vague and hollow. You contribute nothing of substance to the discussion. And you are dishonest, both intellectually and morally/ethically.

It shouldn’t be necessary for me to explain to you the difference between a fact and an opinion, or that the information presented here is factual, verifiable, carefully researched, voluminous, and extremely compelling. If you could actually prove that anything said here to date is incorrect, then you would have; but since you can’t, you dance around the issues and try to cloud them with vagaries.

Steve said: “I am saying I believe Monavie is creating a nutritional product that is a benefit to human beings.”

Fine…are you done now? The evidence shows that it’s of no more benefit than a few swigs of grape juice, so unless you have new evidence to bring to the table, you can just go on your merry way believing a lie.

Steve said: “You are presenting certain evidence to indicate it’s not. However your reasoning and points are not the end all of this discussion just because you may think you are exactly right. Further review by other indviduals are needed.”

Further review by other individuals??? ROFL. Why is that? Because you are to incompetent to do it yourself? We’re not. It’s really not that difficult. Why isn’t one of your smart friends commenting here instead of you? You bring nothing to the table.

Steve said: “Your findings really do not prove anything overall to be true rather you are just finding parts of the story but not the complete story. The rest you are filling in with theories and trying to pass them off as fact.”

Actually, we’ve presented verifiable facts and cogent well-articulated arguments. You on the other hand are speaking in vague terms, have presented not a single fact, and have not shown even one example of factual inaccuracy or unwarranted opinion on our part.

Steve said: “I have read many disturbing things on this forum that make Monavie out to be some evil organization. My research has not concluded that at all and I find exactly the opposite.”

Here’s the difference between you and I Stevie boy — I SHOW my research and I back it up with verifiable facts; you don’t. If you don’t think that it’s evil to attempt to sell an overpriced nutritionally-inert juice as a miracle cure cancer patients, then you’ve got a cracked moral compass.

Steve said: “I will try to have a healthy and respectful discussion with you guys over the next couple weeks and hopefully we can make sense of some things.”

Oh goodie. We are all waiting with bated breath for you to help us make sense out of all these arcane and bewildering pieces of information that our brains collectively cannot process.

We’re doing just fine without you so far, but if you ever decide to post a relevant and verifiable fact or two (that we haven’t already discussed), it would be much appreciated.

Steve said: “I will try to find out as much as possible about certain subjects and present whatever I can about them.”

Start by finding out your Monavie distributor ID# and then post it here, as your contract demands.

Steve said: “I respect your hard work on this site and I think some things that you have found may prove to be true afterall but like I said maybe Monavie has a reasonable explanation for it.”

You don’t respect our research at all. If you did, you wouldn’t be pretending that the facts don’t exist, and you wouldn’t be going through this hopelessly tiresome and transparently dishonest charade. It’s another diversionary tactic to steer attention away from the fact that there is nothing tangible you can say in defense of the juice.

“Again I have only been involved with Monavie for 6 months so I do not understand everything so I am trying to make sense of everything. From my experience however I do not think Monavie is the unethical, and evil organization you make them out to be.”

Ohhhh…you didn’t mention that you were learning disabled. Most people figure it out in less than day, but if you haven’t figured it out yet after 6 months, then you must be…well, special.

Vogel,

Thanks Pal!! Sounds like you like me!!

My Distributor ID# 2492135……..

Steve, you have to stop cutting and pasting all of this rambling BS and make a concise point. Otherwise, you’ll probably get blocked. If you have a point to make, than make it — succinctly.

Steve D. I need to give you credit for reading the AIBMR study. This is in direct contrast to the average MonaVie distributor.

In regards to the anthocyanins listed in the study. The three anthocyanins mentioned, along with two others are the largest identifiable group from the polyphenols analyzed. However, it is still only 0.177 mg. of the 1.48 mg. of total phenolics (polyphenols). The others are mostly various phenolic acids.

They are clever with words in the abstract, but the total milligrams of anthocyanins is quite low.

Consider the study by Schauss, et al on the freeze-dried acai powder: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17061839

The authors list the total anthocyanins as 3.1919 mg/gm.

If the finished product were made from 100% acai concentrate (it is not), then the highest possible anthocyanin level would be 3.1919 mg/ml. Now, dilute the actual product (MonaVie) with other lower level anthocyanin ingredients. You end up with a juice that has an anthocyanin level of 0.177 mg/ml (AIBMR). or 0.095 mg/ml (Chromadex/FT).

So, reduced ORAC (1,027 down to 22.81) and reduced anthocyanins (3.1919 to 0.177) equals low levels of acai.

This isn’t rocket science. It’s food science.

I would suggest that you review another study: Comparison of Antioxidant Potency of Commonly Consumed Polyphenol-Rich Beverages in the United States (Center for Human Nutrition, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA – Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2008, Vol. 56, pgs. 1415-1422

This study addresses the antioxidant potency of several polyphenol-rich juices. MonaVie isn’t listed, but you can compare some of the data with the less detailed AIBMR study.

You’ll see that MonaVie is well behind several common store-shelf juices in antioxidant capacity.

I mentioned this once before a long time ago, but it bears repeating. The following quote was from Alexander Schauss’ research article on Opti-Acai freeze-dried acai powder, the alleged “magic ingredient’ in Monavie:
“Contradictorily and surprisingly, the contents of anthocyanins, proanthocyanidins, and other polyphenol compounds in this freeze-dried product were found to be much lower than those found in blueberry or any other berries with elevated H-ORACFL values. To make things even more confusing, the total phenolics in acai was found to be only 13.9 mg/g GAE.”
[p. 8608, Schauss et al. J Agric Food Chem. 2006; 54(22):8604-10.]
http://www.aibmr.com/resources/pdfs/J%20agric%20food%20chem%2054(22)%208604-10.pdf

So there you have it. Schauss himself admits that his acai powder is not a particularly good source of anthocyanins, proanthocyanidins, or phenolics. The Chromadex and AIBMR analyses of Monavie juice showed also showed that is not a good source of these compounds. Refer to Food Tech’s last post about the AIBMR phenolic and anthocyanin results, and my post about the proanthocyanidin content (1000x lower than in grape juice). Men’s Journal, which commissioned Chromadex to analyze Monavie juice, reported the following:

“MonaVie tested extremely low in anthocyanins and phenolics. Even apple juice (which also tested poorly) has more phenolics than this Utah-based company’s juice. Plus, MonaVie’s vitamin C level was five times lower than that of Welch’s Grape Juice. That’s not many nutrients, especially at $1.20 a serving”
http://www.mensjournal.com/superjuices-on-trial

Based on the simple calculations we posted previously, we know that Monavie juice contains no more than 0.022 g/mL of acai powder. The serving size of Monavie is 2 ounces (60 mL). A serving of Monavie, therefore, contains 1.32 g of acai powder. This means that, according to the phenolic levels reported by Schauss et al. (2006), the acai powder in a serving of Monavie provides less than 19 mg of phenolics. According to this study article by Seeram et al., single Fuji apple provides 420 mg of total phenolics — that’s 22 times more than the phenolics provided by the acai powder in a serving of Monavie.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18220345

Every last piece of evidence shows that Monavie is low in anthocyanins, proanthocyanidins, and phenolics. It has been amply demonstrated along several lines of reasoning, using scientific data, simple math, and sound logic.

The JB showed Anti-inflammatory effects in several in vitro
assays using the inflammatory PMN cell. JB treatment of PMN
cells showed both a reduction in ROS formation and altered
migratory behavior. In particular, the effect on PMN migration
indicated altered cellular behavior beyond a simple contribution
of antioxidants. PMN migration involves both random and
directed migration behavior. Random migration reflects PMN
cell scavenging for invaders as part of normal immune surveil-
lance. In contrast, directed migration toward a chemoattractant
involves migration toward and into sites of inflammation. It is
biologically relevant to distinguish the effects of natural products
on our innate defense mechanisms, such as random migration
and migration in response to bacterial invaders, as opposed to
inflammatory mediators made by the host. Therefore, it is interest that JB treatment of freshly purified human PMN cells
in vitro affected random and fmlp-directed migratory behavior
differently from PMN migration toward the inflammatory
mediators LTB4 and IL-8. We speculate that the anti-inflam-
matory properties of JB in vivo may allow normal immune
surveillance while at the same time reducing inflammatory
conditions.

More notice of the Anti-inflammatory properties of the JB………..

Steve D. Writes: “Also if these levels of Polyphenols are so low like you and foodtech are saying why would they then you use the words significant or high level of specific polyphenols?”

**That’s pretty simple to figure out. The AIBMR study was funded by MonaVie, so their conclusions will reflect this. There are no RDA specs for polyphenols, so any level can be intepreted as significant. Weasel science at its finest.

You’re making this way more complicated for yourself than you need to, Steve.

AIBMR reported a total phenolics (polyphenol) level of 1.48 mg/ml. for MonaVie. This equates to 175 mg. for a daily 4 oz. serving.

ONE apple has 520 mg. of polyphenols (150 gm. red delicious variety). Please review the USDA ORAC Table of Selected Foods.

The antioxidant capacity and polyphenol level of MonaVie is lower than several store-shelf juices and many, many common fruits and vegetables. There really isn’t anything left to debate about that.

The in vivo study that you keep bringing up is invalid. A single 4 oz. serving of MonaVie cannot be used as the test standard when the product clearly says 1-2 oz. twice a day.

You really don’t have anything left to debate here until you clear up that little detail.

As for Dr. Schauss, Vogel has researched his background very well. His Phd is from a diploma mill (Calif Coast University). No classes. No labs. No credibility. You can have all of the credentials in the world, but that isn’t going to make you an ethical scientist.

As for me, I work as a custodian at McDonalds. Does that change any of the data and references I’ve cited?

For organization purposes Steve’s long comment about Dr. Schauss’ credentials has been moved to this post:

http://www.juicescam.com/dr-alex-schauss-and-monavie/

Feel free to discuss there.

Your getting Value with the Active product if your body and bones do start feeling better and I know for many this is the case. Anything in liquid form has usually been better for me. I can take aloe vera pills but the juice has always been more effective. I could take cod liver pills but the liquid is more effective and potent. Now combine the glucosamine with the added effects from the natural inflammatories from the fruits in Monavie (the effects of reacting against inflammation were also noted in the schauss study) and you have a quality product that aims at attacking inflammation.

BTW: MonaVie Active contains 1500 mg of glucosamine in 4 oz. In two Active gel packs (1oz serving size each) there are 1500 mg of glucosamine. Many studies have been done on the effects of glucosamine and joint health. A set dosage of glucosamine has not been determined yet, but most clinical trials have used approximately 1200-1500 mg (1.5g) of glucosamine per day. Because of this, this amount is generally accepted as a safe, effective dose.

You are not necessarily improving the bones in your body if you perceive them feeling better. Perception and reality are quite different. This has been studied millions of times, which is why we now test for the placebo effect. When you say “bones do start feeling better and I know for many this is the case” you have to prove that it isn’t it isn’t a placebo effect. If you do not, you may harm the person more than help them because that person is more likely to neglect their underlying condition and seek medical attention until more damage is done. We shouldn’t be tricking our bodies into feeling good and concluding that to be a path towards better health.

Steve, there is no evidence that MonaVie has more “natural inflammatories” than fruit. In fact the conclusion of the study did say that fruit would have the same effect. So you could combine the glucosamine that I mentioned previously with an apple and save yourself a ton of money. If you don’t want the apple and must have a juice, you can pick up V8 Fusion Acai Berry. There’s no evidence that MonaVie Active is any better than V8 Fusion Acai Berry with crushed glucosamine pills. It would stand to reason that V8 Fusion would score better in the tests, since you could test quadruple it’s serving size (like they did with MonaVie) and see the “natural inflammatories” effect of 32 ounces of juice. Interestingly, 32 ounces of V8 Fusion Acai Berry would still be cheaper than 4 ounces of MonaVie. Is MonaVie unbiased enough to do take that challenge?

Before you go into the liquid argument, please ensure that MonaVie Active’s glucosamine comes from a liquid source. As I mentioned before, it is quite easy to MonaVie to toss a few cheap pills in the blend, just so that they can make some marketing medical claims to sell their juice for a lot more money.

Also please provide the link on MonaVie’s website that MonaVie Active contains 1500 mg of glucosamine in 4 oz. I believe it to be true, but I haven’t found official documentation of it. If MonaVie isn’t “putting it writing”, one has to ask why not?

@ Food Tech and Monavie Scam:

“Steve, the bottom line: MonaVie (any variety) is a fruit punch in a shiny bottle. It is marketed to a demographic that is, generally, unsophisticated. It cannot, and does not treat or cure any affliction. It doesn’t lower cholesterol, help with diabetes or asthma. 4 oz. is equal to 2/3 of a serving of fruits. An apple has an antioxidant capacity 2.4 times higher than 4 oz. of MonaVie.

These are not opinions. These are hard facts. The only way that you can dispute them is to reference scientific studies that state otherwise. You cannot, because there are none”.

Well said. I don’t understand why these people argue without giving any reference from Monavie itself. Anyone can state an opinion but Monavie doesn’t show us any scientific test or data to back up what they say. That is the reason why I say Monavie is a “piss juice”.

As Monavie Scam said, V8 is 10 times cheaper than buying a bottle of this piss juice. They give the same nutrients. If you want to waste your money, by all means go for it.

Vogel,

It says further studies are needed to evauluate it doesn’t say Monavie does reverse disease…..

Don’t see your point here at all. I am simply talking about the scientific study that Monavie did what I can’t talk about that?

They had all the test people fast and stay free of antioxidants for one day because there is a baseline. I am sure these scientists have done many studies before and they used the same baseline. You don’t want someone eating grapes and orange juice before the study and have it all out of wack or have a guy eat a big mac b4 the study either. It makes complete sense. Seems like you guys keep trying to denounce the fact the Monavie did in fact raise antioxidant levels significantly and it did show to help fight against inflammation as well.

Foodtech about the cholesterol you can easily say it can’t help it because the FDA is on your side and Monavie technically can’t state that because they can’t make claims. However I have seen evidence with my own eyes choose to believe or not up to you……….Not claiming it will help people but it can be nutritional to your heart.

Also now many people who drink 4 oz in the morning and then that’s it for the day or they drink 2 and 2 or they might drink 6 oz at a time. All people are different not everybody gets a measuring cup and measures out their dosage. It ain’t that technical. The studies are very valid in my mind

Steve said: “It says further studies are needed to evauluate it doesn’t say Monavie does reverse disease…..”

Look Steve, how long are will you continue to throw out these time-wasting powderpuff counterarguments and false statements. Really son, it’s been just one pile of blatant BS after another since you started posting.

This is your company’s policy, which you agreed to abide by:

“When promoting the product, do not use scientific studies or other publications that DISCUSS the effects of the ingredients if they conclude or SUGGEST the ingredients can prevent, mitigate, diagnose, treat or cure a disease.”
http://monavieuniversity.zaah.net/?s=fruit+juice+products

It doesn’t matter that Schauss’ study did not directly state that “Monavie does reverse disease”; it clearly suggested it, albeit with no reasonable justification whatsoever. It’s your own damn fault that you signed a contract that prohibits your from discussing this study. You signed away a lot of things when you inked your name on that contract — your soul for instance. If you want the freedom to speak your mind about Monavie, then I suggest you relinquish your distributorship; otherwise you are beholden, legally and ethically.

Steve said: “They had all the test people fast and stay free of antioxidants for one day because there is a baseline. I am sure these scientists have done many studies before and they used the same baseline.”

Only if they were poorly designed studies. And why would you profess to know with any certainty what scientists do, when quite clearly, your own knowledge of science is plainly inadequate.

The point is that it was a rigged and erroneous comparison — the study compared Monavie with starvation. You might be able to get away with telling people that an occasional shot of Monavie is marginally better than starving, but the point is moot. You could drink 4 ounces of any fruit juice, or eat just about any food for that matter, and expect at least as good a result. Aside from that, I’ll reiterate, the TBAR figure in the study shows a FLAT LINE for Monavie over two hours — it did not affect a change in TBAR levels. And aside from that, as I pointed out already, Monavie contains high amounts of vitamin C, which is by far the most obvious explanation for any antioxidant benefits the juice may have (not that the study adequately demonstrated any). The company had to have known this a priori; they engineered this lame duck study nonetheless.

Steve said: “Seems like you guys keep trying to denounce the fact the Monavie did in fact raise antioxidant levels significantly and it did show to help fight against inflammation as well.”

Actually, we have presented facts and data, over and over again, and you still have your head stuck up your ass. I have a hard time believing that anyone could be that obtuse in reality, which leads me to conclude that your main goal here is to bury factual information and waste other people’s time by forcing them to sift through and respond to a never-ending stream of feeble objections, baseless opinions, and factually inaccurate assertions — all acts of sheer desperation.

Steve said: “Foodtech about the cholesterol you can easily say it can’t help it because the FDA is on your side and Monavie technically can’t state that because they can’t make claims.”

Is that your paranoid delusion — that FDA is an evil organization out to screw everybody — and Monavie in particular. The FDA does not make the laws that prohibit you from doing the kind of snakeoil advertising you and your distributor pals have been doing chronically. The laws are made by legislators who are voted into office by the voters of the good old USofA. So when you vilify the law that the FDA attempts to uphold, what you are really doing is showing your disregard for Congress, the US populace, and the Constitution. If you don’t like the law, then work within the system to change it, and until you do, abide by it without exception or expect to face the consequences (the very least of which are being thrashed and denounced by people like me).

Steve said: “Also now many people who drink 4 oz in the morning and then that’s it for the day or they drink 2 and 2 or they might drink 6 oz at a time. All people are different not everybody gets a measuring cup and measures out their dosage. It ain’t that technical. The studies are very valid in my mind.”

In your mind, a thought would die of loneliness.

The company recommends 2 ounces two times a day (don’t you recall their slogan “2 ounces in the morning and 2 ounces at night”)? The FTC requires that any representations made about a product must be TYPICAL. If the typical dose is 2 ounces two times per day, then the effects of drinking 4 ounces at once would not be typical. And that’s just looking at it from the perspective of advertising legality; obviously the same holds especially true from a scientific standpoint.

Why would you delete my comments?

I am just presenting what the studies say and you guys are just coming up with excuses to why it’s not valid.

[Editor's response: We know what the studies say, we don't need to you present them. We don't come up with excuses for why the studies aren't valid - we come up logical reasoning as to why they aren't valid. When we ask you to tell us where our logic fails, you resort to an argument of "well I'm sure the scientists know what they are doing" or "in my mind I believe these studies." These are not valid reasons for refuting a point.]

I thought Monavie contained very low levels of Vitamin C now it contains high levels? Which one is it?

[Editor's response: Four ounces of MonaVie contains 100% of the RDA of vitamin C. That 60 miligrams. For 8 cents a pill, I can get 1000 miligrams - more than 16 times more vitamin here. So on one hand there's enough vitamin C in four ounces of MonaVie to explain the results. However, on the other hand, if you are good with pill splitter or decide to crush up 100 pills and divide the result into 1600 portions, you can get the same results for half a cent.]

Sorry I disagree with you Vogel doesn’t make me any more less right than you I’m sorry. I know after you have done all your hard research it’s tough to realize some things as fact but all good.

[Editor's response: Vogel presented valid reasons and explanations. You did not refute them. Until you do he has won the point and is indeed judged to be "more right than you."]

Fact is Monavie raised antioxidant levels SIGNIFICANTLY. You have to keep everybody on the same level and this seems like the best way to do it. Or they could of fed everybody Big Macs but that wouldn’t of worked because everybody would react to big macs differently.

[Editor's response: Again, vitamin C raises antioxidant levels SIGNIFICANTLY. They could control the diets of people. They could placed the same restrictions and then given everyone the same amount of food with equal antioxidants. Then give one group MonaVie and one group a placebo. This is testing a real world scenario of people with food in their stomachs in a fair and eqaul way. It does not test people void of nutrients which never happens and then ask them to take an amount of MonaVie that people very rarely take. Lastly, and most importantly, the study needed to compare MonaVie to other antioxidants, because the question is not whether MonaVie can raise antioxidant levels, but the question is whether it is a cost-effective way of doing it. If it turns out that a half a cent of vitamin C produces the same effect (as one would expect), we can conclude the test is not a reason to buy MonaVie.]

You guys are making a big deal out of nothing. The dosage was fine 2 oz in the morning 2 oz at night is still 4 oz which is exactly what they tested for. Also many people will drink 4 oz just in the morning and nothing at night everybody is different.

[Editor's response: Hundreds of distributors have weighed in here and not one has previously suggested that they drink 4 at one time. If you ignore the fact that timing and quantity matters greatly when you take antioxidants, then you are just ignorant.]

Monavie also showed to have anti-inflammatory properties. Fact is Monavie went out of their way to get the tests done and they came back with some very positive results. Tons of other companies will not do this and have not done this. So there is evidence that Monavie is quality.

[Editor's response: The reason why MonaVie commissioned this test is to sell more juice. Of course it's going to come back with very positive results. As mentioned previously, vitamin C would come back with very positive results as well. MonaVie's hope is that it can trick enough people into ignoring all the evidence that this study wasn't conducted properly from the outset. It has obviously worked with Steve because like the person in this video who thinks a ghost is moving the lampshade he's unwilling to be open-minded about the study when a more obvious explanation is completely logical.]

Scam should I be banned for those comments?

Seems like you guys just won’t let anybody come on here and try to argue their point rather just bash them and make them look stupid. Maybe I shouldn’t waste my time here anymore…

[Editor's response: There are plenty of people who are welcome to try the argue their point. The problem comes when you can't refute our logical points and are left with a response similar to, "Well I still like MonaVie." That doesn't push the debate any further. If you want to push it further, please try to get MonaVie or Alex Schauss to explain why he didn't have a third comparison group consisting of people who just took a multivitamin? Ask him why he didn't have a fourth one who just ate an apple or an orange. This is the data that MonaVie will never provide because they don't want you do know that their expensive juice can be easily and cheaply replaced.]

What is humorous to me is that MonaVie distributors like to refer to drinking MonaVie as “taking” MonaVie, and as “doses” of MonaVie.

In regards to the amount of MonaVie juice used for the “test”, using the above logic, Steve’s argument fails here (and on so many other levels) because he has no problem with the test using a “double dose”. Now think about that…how well would that “test” stand if it were a medicine that were double dosed and then those results were used to support the efficacy of said drug? Most people would see the problem with the dosing not being tested at a standardized acceptable expected usage level.

It seems that this particular distributor, Steve, wants to play both sides of the field.

[Editor's Note: I'm editing some of Steve's comments to try to keep conversation on track]

I think it’s just crazy that you guys are discrediting this test at all. If I say one thing you guys will just come up with something to refute anybody could do that. Being critical of anything is the easiest thing anyone can do.. So vogel since you believe the Cap Assay is BS it’s BS? I think these scientists have 10000x the credentials you do.

[Editor's Note: Anyone who has read Vogel's posts here knows that he is one of these scientists. He has discussed the cap assay in detail in the past: http://www.juicescam.com/monavie-vs-an-apple/#comment-1622.

Nice try comparin 2 oz of Monavie which is Fruit Juice compared to a drug like Aspirin which can be dangerous when taken in higher levels than needed. Good Comparison there!

[Editor's Note: The comparison was to show you that quantity and timing of ingesting substances do matter. I think it proved it's point quite well. Of course if you want to claim that MonaVie is just a fruit juice and doesn't have an impact on the body, then we can quit this discussion and move on.]

There really is no big deal with the dosage of 4 oz at all because all distributors are taking this product in differently. Some will drink 2 oz a day, some 4 oz , some 6 some 8 etc……..4 is a fine baseline.

[Editor's Note: Steve is repeating the same thing yet again as if it makes it true. MonaVie's serving size is one ounce and it recommends two ounces in morning and night. Just because some people will do thing against recommendations doesn't mean that scientists should design their test for that rare edge case.]

From the studies Monavie showed to have high levels of specific polyphenols that also came up similar in the freeze dried acai tests performed:

Antioxidant consumption, along with anti-inflammatory treatment, is being critically evaluated as a potential strategy for reversal of disease progression (25). It has been suggested that the apparent failure of multiple larger clinical trials to document reversal of disease processes may be linked to the choice of antioxidants. In particular, the frequent use of vitamins C and E in such studies may be due to availability and low cost, but may not have been the best choice, as both vitamins have pro-oxidant capacity as well (26). In contrast, studies on polyphenols may be much more promising, and may be more relevant, as these types of antioxidants are the most abundant in a health-conscious diet (27-29). Given the high content of certain specific polyphenols in the JB, the increased antioxidant protection in vivo after consumption of the JB, and the anti-inflammatory capacity in vitro, further studies are needed.

So Monavie does have certain high levels of Polyphenols and I believe it has some phytonutrients that have yet to be discovered as well. It’s not just Vitamin C and E that is rasing these levels it’s the polyphenols and specfic phytonutrients that are raising these levels most likely. As well as the Juice having a profound anti-inflammatory effect combined with the antioxidant raising it’s a very potent juice.

[Editor's note: This conclusion by Steve is seems to misinterpret the conclusion of the study. It does not say that vitamin C and E would not produce a similar effect. It says "may not have been the best choice as both vitamins have pro-oxidant capacity as well." If the attempt here is to place vitamin C in a negative light as a pro-oxidant, then we have more reason to question why it is the highest amount, in terms of RDA, of any vitamin in MonaVie. If the study is trying to say that polyphenols can increase the antioxidant protection in vivo, then one should eat an apple as it's polyphenol amount is far greater for far less cost. If the idea is that some undiscovered phytonutrients are the reason then do comparison tests to prove that MonaVie has more of these undiscovered phytonutrients. I could claim that an apple has undiscovered phytonutrients as well.]

Scam guys – can you provide more evidence to back up your claims – it seems that there is an organized bunch of juice scam supporters that tire down everybody who is bringing up valid points. [Editor's Note: Tom doesn't bring up valid points. We've responded to anything that seems near valid. We provide evidence for what we say while Toms bring conspiracy theories] It is typical tactic – someone is against these guys, they all mobilize, comment each other comments and attack, attack, and eventually people go away to do other things, and it appears that our juice-scam guys win. [Editor's Note: It doesn't appear that way... I offer to change any article here that is shown to provide bad information... I haven't had to make any changes.]

Yes guys – win ot for big overweight pharma companies, your great food or I shoould say chemical companies that are responsible for GMOs, fattening of Americans, would it be Campbell Soups (V8), or Del Monte, or our own Coca-Cola, Pepsi.

By the way it is interesting that all of these big food companies jumped on the acai band wagon – is this worthless acai worth anything after all? [Editor's Note: I know no one who said that acai was worthless, just that it's no different than other berries.]

Do you have any other reports than Men’s health report? [Editor's Note: Men's Journal. Do you have any reports that actually say that MonaVie is good? We haven't seen any yet, including MonaVie's Dr. Alex Schauss'] Talk to Joanna Krupa why she drinks MV. Maybe you will learn sth. [Editor's Note: Do we really care about a supermodel's (Joanna Krupa) opinion? She'd still be a supermodel if MonaVie never existed. Instead why not focus on unbiased and more reputable doctors' opinions such as Dr. Andrew Weil (formally in Time Magazine's top 25 Americans and top 100 people in the world). Dr. Dean Edell and Dr. Jonny Bowden have spoken out against MonaVie as well.
]

As far as more research maybe you could do sth on your own. It seems that you have so much time to waste.

So, tell me guys what do you like? We all know you are anti-MLM, anti-MV, anti-Schauss, anti-Dallin, anti-acai…[Editor's Note: Unprocessed fruit and vegetables that are freely available. I also like people's ability to choose organic versions of those, which they can't if they go with MonaVie. Personally, I don't mind Alex Schauss since he provides us with all sorts of great information about how MonaVie lacks nutrition.]

Is there anything you like, any companies? I have seen Food Tech’s comment somewhere that he worked for big corporations. This explains a lot. [Editor's Note: Tom now seems to be making a claim that all big corporations are bad.] DO you know that pharma companies earn more than 145 Billion on diabetes in US alone. Would you think any big company has interest to educate population that the food does matter. That eating fruits and vegetable every day can prevent civilization diseases that are so prevelent in US, and other highly-developed countries. [Editor's Note: There's plenty of education on eating fruits and vegetables in the US. Apparently Tom has never heard of the famous and amazingly popular show invented in the US called The Biggest Loser (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Biggest_Loser). Tom's conspiracy theory would have us believe that big food and pharma companies should have stopped the show from ever being aired. Instead they are the biggest advertisers on the show and have been since the beginning.]

It is easier to pay guys like our funny juice scam bunch of guys than to risk any of the dollars that flow constantly to the sickness industry. One tactic that pharma companies are doing is paying so called experts to criticize food supplement companies, products, and then send them for a well-deserved vacation. [Editor's Note: Another of Tom's conspiracy theory with no evidence. It's really just common sense - there's no need for expensive supplementation that doesn't add fiber, vitamins, or minerals when you simply just eat well.]

I guess chemical, and food companies are paying guys like our favourite bunch to stay glued to their monitors and attack anything that moves. I guess they are much cheaper. Give them unlimited supply of chips, V8, and carbonated drinks and voila, here they are – the GREAT DEFENDERS of our typical food stuffs, and our typical lifestyles. [Editor's Note: No food company has given anywhere here a dime or any product. And we are health advocates, contrary to your opinion.]

Shame on you guys. [Editor's Note: Shame on you Tom for your continued conspiracy theories and lies with no evidence. You won't come back and provide evidence, but instead you'll just make new conspiracy theories and lies elsewhere.]