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.]

[Editor's Note: Saying that further studies is needed to see if MonaVie can treat or prevent diseases does indeed suggest that MonaVie can do that. If I were to say that further studies are needed to see if I can flap my arms and fly, I am indeed suggesting that I may be able to flap my arms and fly.]

Also Vogel because one opinion of somebody on Pubmed says that Monavie’s test against Lipid Peroxidation is not that effective makes it valid? Monavie did reduce lipid peroxidation again these scientists studies

[Editor's Note: Keep in mind that this whole study by Dr. Alex Schauss is "one opinion of somebody on Pubmed", so umm yes it is valid.]

What are your credentials Vogel? Please state them. What is your background I think it is very important to this discussion.

[Editor's Note: Vogel is a giant octopus from the planet Kelmar. This has been covered numerous times previously. Everyone knows that giant space octopi are extremely smart. However, if you do not agree you can read the studies yourself and apply common sense as we all are doing. If you lack the common sense to make the decision yourself, I am sorry.]

You guys just want to deny the fact that this product is a quality product with some real benefits to the human body. It has been shown in this one test on one of their products which since they have added two more and not to mention the countless people who have actually drank the product and felt great benefits from it. Of course though you guys don’t believe that and will discount it as much as possible and say it’s a Placebo effect but the juice was tested against a Placebo! So that argument is void.

[Editor's Note: When I say that MonaVie has a placebo effect, claims people are making that MonaVie provides medicinal benefits can be attributed to the placebo effect. We can imagine a study where eating a tablespoon of salt or sugar shows some negative effect in the body as well. We can't take that and extrapolate that it causes all sorts of diseases. This is what MonaVie is trying to do with this study. MonaVie doesn't want to do the same test on fruit, because it will come out that actual fruit does even better on the test than MonaVie. Then MonaVie can't hold up this test and say that potentially does anything. It's also worth noting that this test was done quite a long time ago. There has been ample time for further studies. I haven't seen any.]

Also Vogel I am simply going with the flow of the conversation here even though this is off topic for the actual subject (Monavie billion dollars) don’t blame me for that. If Scam wants to move these comments elsewhere then that’s on him.

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.]

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

They aren’t excuses, they are facts, and the studies you cite don’t support the points you are trying to make nor do they attest to Monavie having any significant value. You purposely ignore information from the same studies when they go against your POV.

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

Must be so complex for you. How can you be expected to process two independent pieces of information at the same time? You do know how to read right? I don’t believe that you are as mentally challenged as you pretend to be; so you must be purposely dodging the facts and trying to waste everyone’s time trying to explain the obvious to you. That’s why your posts are going to get deleted if you don’t shape up

Men’s Journal’s analysis by Chromadex reported that the vitamin C levels in Monavie were 5 times lower than those of Welch’s grape juice. The Monavie bottle label shows that the juice provides 15 mg vitamin C per ounce. Vitamin C is a potent antioxidant and Monavie, according to the label at least, contains an amount that would be fully expected to have antioxidant effects in vitro and in vivo. So Monavie’s idiotic experiment compared ingesting 60 mg of vitamin C (the amount in the 4 ounces consumed by the participants) versus starving for 12 hours. They knew what the outcome would be a priori and conducted the useless experiment so that it could be used by intellectual lightweights like yourself to help peddle scam juice.

Steve said: “Fact is Monavie raised antioxidant levels SIGNIFICANTLY.

Fact is you can’t even report a basic detail like that accurately. Antioxidants are specific chemical compounds; this study did NOT measure their levels in the body. Rather, they used one indirect measure of antioxidative capacity (ORAC), but it showed that Monavie had no effect. The CAP-e assay is BS. Something snakeoil queen Gitte Jensen cooked up. I could explain the many reasons why this non-validated assay that NO ONE uses, but it would go way over your head, and frankly, you’re not worth the extra effort. You seem to be the only who doesn’t get it; or more accurately PRETENDS to not get it.

Steve said: “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.”

Fine Steve, since the timing of doses doesn’t matter to you, go take 6 g of Tylenol all at once and let me know how that works out for you. Or will the Monavie magically protect your from acetaminophen-induced liver failure?

Steve said: “Fact is Monavie went out of there wawy got the tests done… Tons of other companies will not do this.”

Actually tons of other companies do test their products and publish the results. There are reams of articles on grape juice, pomegranate juice, blueberry juice, and orange juice, etc from companies like Minute Maid, Welch’s, etc. The difference is that those companies don’t send out desperate idiots to hawk their products as miracle drugs to medical patients, they don’t grossly overcharge, and they aren’t pyramid schemes.

Steve said: “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………..”

We showed incredible indulgence when you first came here to argue your point. You failed miserably and had your ass handed to you, and now you’re being a disruptive crybaby. Next time, think twice about your conduct and don’t squander the opportunity.

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.

If I tossed a stone into a lake, would that be significant? So, loosely using subjective terms in a scientific article makes the writer look unprofessional.

As for the 4 ounce vs. two ounce debate, forget it, Steve. There is no way you can win that one. The test was blatantly rigged. I was embarrassed for them to even attempt such a silly thing.

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.]

People have seen evidence with their own eyes of Bigfoot, as well. That doesn’t make it scientifically valid.

You can believe whatever you want, but you don’t have the science to prove what you believe.

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.

You can talk about the study that MonaVie did, but you have to recognize to the objective non-biased reader, it makes MonaVie very, very bad.

I’m okay with using a baseline, but please understand that no one lives at the baseline. It is completely possible that MonaVie does not raise antioxidant levels on a normal diet. In fact it is quite probable. And Dr. Jonny Bowden even says the same thing.

Even if you don’t believe that, as Vogel mentioned, a vitamin C pill would significantly raise antioxidant levels as well. So this test proved that $7 of MonaVie (retail price) is worth about the same as a 7 cent vitamin.

Steve, please don’t “measure out dosages” of MonaVie – that’s something that you do with medicine. If you don’t know the difference than it makes since why the studied are valid in your mind.

Bottom line: If you can’t provide any more valid argument than what makes sense in your mind, I’m going to be deleting your comments.