MonaVie Knows Their Juice Can’t Treat Medical Conditions

25
Comments

Having just established that MonaVie does not treat medical conditions, it’s worth noting that MonaVie, the company, implicitly agrees that their juice can’t treat medical conditions.

Let’s imagine for a minute that MonaVie can treat a medical condition or disease. What a medical breakthrough that would be! Fruit hasn’t been shown to do it, but if MonaVie stumbled into some formula it would be groundbreaking. It would make the company billions of dollars. Here’s how:

  • Increased sales from doctors prescriptions – MonaVie likes to claim some pretty lofty sales numbers… however, those sales numbers are tiny compared to what a single drug can make for a single company. This would open up a whole new path of sales – one that would dwarf the currently way that MonaVie is distributed now, since it would be scientifically proven to help the people it’s being marketed to.
  • Increased sales from distributors – Right now a distributor can’t do too much to sell the product. According to MonaVie’s guidlines “No testimonials of any kind will be permitted.”. With FDA approval, a distributor could legally use the claims that the FDA allow about what the juice has been tested to treat. That would be a huge selling point.
  • Free advertising – If MonaVie were to prove that it’s juice could treat medical conditions, it would make the headlines of every newspaper and be on the 6 o’clock news for weeks. Distributors would never have to say, “I know of this juice called MonaVie.” They’d get people coming to them, saying, “I here you can get your hands on MonaVie that’s proven to work with my [fill-in medical condition X].” What a much easier sale to make!

If MonaVie could treat medical conditions, distributors should be very upset with MonaVie for not providing them with the iron-clad proof to make everyone’s lives easier. Of course if it can not treat medical conditions, it’s best not to embarrass yourself by failing in an attempt with the FDA. That seems to be the path MonaVie has chosen which makes the conclusion obvious

Originally posted 2009-11-24 09:14:15. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The above article is intended to be accurate at the time of its original posting. MonaVie may change its pricing, product, or other policies at any time without notice.

This post involves:

,

... and focuses on:

MonaVie & Medical Conditions

Posted by MonaVie Scam on June 23, 2017 in MonaVie & Medical Conditions. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

25 Responses to “MonaVie Knows Their Juice Can’t Treat Medical Conditions”
  1. Rasheed Says:

    Actually, one of my leaders Chris (he’s a good guy, he’s being deceived by HIS leaders) said that MonaVie (M)mun can treat cancer if you drink 2 bottles a day, saying that it has worked with everyone he knows with cancer. Doctors agree its gone. And he’s actually speaking with an attorney to try to get the FDA to apprrove this claim. So I know he believes in it.

    Do I believe it? I have no proof… but he has no reason to lie really. And he’s a really nice and genuine guy… pity he has to be deceived by Brady and Woodward =\

    But I think it’d be interesting to see how this pans out.

  2. Vogel Says:

    One doesn’t simply speak with an attorney to get FDA approval for a product as a cancer treatment. It involves years of intensive clinical trials and millions of dollars to gain approval. Your friend sounds like a bit of a lunatic.

    I hope you’re not suggesting that you believe this idiocy?

  3. Rasheed Says:

    Yeah, but I’m sure it starts with an attorney to get the FDA to start overseeing clinical trials. Its definitely not going to be a month-long process; more like a few years long. And it definitely seemed like he doesn’t think its going to take just a couple of months. That’s why I said I wanted to see how it pans out.

    I don’t know exactly how valid his statements are (because it was in a private setting I believe it doesn’t violate any policies or whatever) but in the off-chance they’re true, I think this process should go on.

    Now I’m pretty sure its the Wellmune ingredient that would give (M)mun these miracle properties. So the manufacturers of Wellmune should be the one conducting these studies. And i’d imagine they would have noticed these miracle properties before.

    So is all this bogus? I dunno. Probably. But as I said, it’d be interesting to see how it’ll pan out.

  4. mysterious Says:

    rasheed

    you seem to be playing some game with us (just my opinion) you started out on the other end of the stick with an open mind which brought you to not he so hated, and started to show your self by saying stuff that you still havent showed proof yet. and people hear were starting to respect you and now you start with this shit. monaavie m mun is just juice and by stating that comment about it being able to cure cancer based on what your friend said is the biggest crock pot i have ever heard. i think your just trying to pull a fast one over everyone.

    i know you said your friend has no reason to lie but i think he did, or hes just doing what all distribs do which is peddle this garbage. you gatta remember its just juice. i know you are still part of monavie, but after knowing all that you do now, why r u still with them and trying to peddle this garbage. all of this is just my opinion, but you should re read over what you wrote and see how stupid you sound. what exactually r u trying to do make everyone think about monavie.

    hey rasheed hears a bright idea, tell your smut peddleing friend that if he believes in monavie m mun so much to pay to have it tested by a third party and see the results on nutriends and if he wants to take this a bit further to buy 50000 dollars worth and go to someone and do not tell this about the product and his falce claims and then make the patient drink 2 mottles a day and see if his cancer goes away. all doctors do not believe in monavie and the juice because they require real paperwork and i think they know best in the end not monavie who will tell people one day more crazy shit like screw the doctors we r the doctors.

    jesus man common grow up and think with your head. u r blowing shit out of your whale like blow hole.

  5. MonaVie Scam Says:

    As Vogel mentioned, getting a product approved to make a claim about cancer isn’t really something you see an attorney about. If you are your friend, you don’t even start there. You start with the people who actually produce the product. You give them the information you have and you let them make the decision. They are the ones who A) own the product B) stand to profit the most from such research and C) would be footing the bill to get the research done.

    You mention Wellmune as a possible reason for “miracle properties” that your friend is claiming. MonaVie Distributors are quick to point out that Wellmune has $250 million dollars of research behind it. I doubt that the number is true (haven’t researched it), but if it is true, I find it hard to believe that they’d spend all that money and miss a side effect of something like, “Oh it cures cancer” (as you note). Keep in mind that it is essentially a modified form of baker’s yeast… not so amazing. If it did turn out that Wellmune did cure cancer, your friend wouldn’t be doing MonaVie much of a service because people would simply get Wellmune cheaply elsewhere.

    I don’t think it will be interesting how it pans out. If the attorney is an honest guy, he’ll tell your friend Chris that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about here, and it’s better than he doesn’t waste his time and money. If the attorney is not honest, he’ll probably string Chris along for awhile to see how many billable hours he can get out this.

  6. mysterious Says:

    well said scam, i am starting to think rasheed is the friend and it trying to pull a fast one over our heads by saying his friend and talking good about the product in a way of false claims, especially one that is as outragous as curing cancer, because if that was true the world would be all over that doctors of canser patients would be making history as the first ones to cure there patients cancer and the cure would be all over the news long time ago, not just by word of mouth fr4om this loud mouth shanook. weather its his friend or himsef. go spout your findings on curing cancer all over monavie blog and see what they do to you. you know i was starting to think you were open minded rasheed but now u r prooving to be just another dumdum from the barrel of monkeys at monavie and you can just fade off into the darkness like the rest of monavie. grow a pair.

  7. Rasheed Says:

    Mysterious, because your comments contained nothing of substance and merely baseless assumptions, I’ll leave you to your own devices and ignore them.

    MS, I believe I omitted something and so there is a little bit of a misunderstanding. Chris wanted to speak with an attorney so that he could get the FDA to remove the “can’t make non-FDA approved health claims” restriction off of MonaVie.

    And actually, I’ve never heard a MonaVie distrubutor say that people put $250 million of research into Wellmune. They say MONAVIE put $250 million of research into (M)mun, or at least imply that they did. This is also on their “show the plan” flipcharts. Obviously, this is false.

    And it says on the Wellmune people’s website that they themselves put $250 million. How true this is I don’t know.

    And yeah, Wellmune can be gotten cheaper. I’m already getting my fix of glucosamine cheaper in stand-alone form. But Wellmune by itself doesn’t have the antioxidant capacity 13 servings of watermelon and half the nutritional value of an apple!!!! Where else will distributors get this???

    Though I have a feeling nothing breakthrough will come of this, I’ll call my bud in a month or so and see how this dealio’s doing.

  8. mysterious Says:

    distribs r saying that theres 250 million in mmun because dallin larsons cd says so thats why they are going around saying this.

  9. Rasheed Says:

    Thanks for that mysterious. I never listened to any CDs past December, which is before the Mmun CD came out. Its even worse that Dallin is claiming this!

  10. MonaVie Scam Says:

    Well, I think that removing the “can’t make non-FDA approved health claims” is much more interesting. I could see one say that there’s that restricts freedom of speech.

    On the other hand freedom of speech is already restricted in cases where it can pose a danger to the public – such as yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. So I tend to think this falls in the same area.

    I’m not sure which ginormous task is easier to accomplish though… working with the FDA to get something like MonaVie approved to help with cancer… or taking on the FDA in a law suit. I don’t think either is that interest, because the odds of either being successful are too astronomical to be worth the time of discussion.

    As for MonaVie implying they put $250 million worth of research in M(Mun), that is again all implication. You get to seeing these claims and how they are worded. They’ll say something like, “$250 million dollars of research went into making this juice.” That’s because distributors can sell that. It’s just another example of MonaVie being dishonest with the public.

    As far as Wellmune having $250 Million in research behind it, good luck getting them to show you the numbers behind this claim. Even when you start to read about Wellmune’s clinical studies, the results are very, very suspect. I think I remember seeing that the two groups of people (placebo and Wellmune) tested missed the same amount of work days.

    I bet Vogel could probably have a field day with Wellmune, if he were inclined to look into those studies. My guess is that it’s 10% better than the chemically similar baker’s yeast… if that.

  11. Rasheed Says:

    Yeah, I agree MS. I’m not gonna get involved in whatever’s going on since I’m only affiliated with MonaVie and TEAM on paper, but I dunno. Though I doubt anything will come to fruition, if it does, a lot of people could be helped, if my friend is not lying at least.

    MS said: “As for MonaVie implying they put $250 million worth of research in M(Mun), that i again all implication. You get to seeing these claims and how they are worded They’ll say something like, “$250 million dollars of research went into making thi juice.” That’s because distributors can sell that. It’s just another example of MonaVie being dishonest with the public”

    That’s the funny thing. MonaVie implies “$250 million research went into this juice.” And distributors are mislead and say, “MonaVie put $250 million… that’s ONE-EIGHTH of their revenue!!” The latter statement is a statement I’ve actually heard my sponsor say to prospects, because he hd been told that MonaVie had already reached $2 billion.

    So the grapevine makes distributors misconstrue the message… which is probably what Larsen had intended in the first place.

    Even if MonaVie sold a stellar product (and if they did, they wouldn’t have to resort to lying and misconstruing messages), I wouldn’t want to work with them because it would be an insult to my integrity. And I know many other distributors feel the same way.

    I’ve actually never heard of Wellmune prior to MonaVie, but I’m sure some research into the matter would show that their product might be bogus as well. Bug probably less bogus than MonaVie because MonaVie just takes Wellmune’s claims and add a whole bunch of other bogus claims to it.

  12. Vogel Says:

    I haven’t gone through the studies yet, but I visited the Wellmune research website I could tell right off the bat that the people at this company are dishonest. The company’s ‘Scientific Literature’ webpage features a list of publications below a prominent photo of 5 journals; among the journals shown in the photo are the prestigious journals JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), Cancer Research, and Archives of Surgery. Problem is, there was never any research on Wellmune published in those journals; rather, nearly all of the Wellmune studies were published in low-prestige, low-impact journals.
    http://www.wellmune.com/scientificliterature.html

    When I see such a blatant misrepresentation as this, I can’t help but immediately despise this company. I have little doubt that their product is next to valueless, otherwise they wouldn’t need to lie about their science; nor would they be in cahoots with Monavie; now would they use a circus clown like Paul Clayton as their Wellmune pitchman.

  13. MonaVie Scam Says:

    Yes Rasheed you are seeing the game here. This is MonaVie playing the “Chinese Whispers / telephone game” that I explain at the end of the paragraph of “How a MonaVie Distributor May Mislead You” at JuiceScam.com:

    “Whether the MonaVie distributor is intentionally trying to mislead you or if they just got bad information from the person above them is unimportant. MonaVie loves this method of distribution because like a came of Chinese Whispers or Telephone Game, the truth gets distorted and embellished as it passes down the line from distributor to distributor.”

    I haven’t changed that text in probably 6 months.

    This is exactly what you see with claims about acai (acai is not MonaVie and MonaVie is not acai) and the “antioxidant of 13 fruits” claim.

    These situations are set up specifically because of the MonaVie distribution system. The idea is, “let’s feed these people more things to sell product.”

    You even get really disgusting things like the email I got from MonaVie’s Erica Bryant here: http://www.juicescam.com/monaive-aibmr-only-research/.

    There are a number of badly researched items here, but for now, just focus on the #9 about acai pulp effects in fruit flies (by MonaVie’s own Alex Schauss). MonaVie is negligent for showing this as any reputable research to distributors… see: MonaVie, Acai, and Fruit Flies.

    Yet distributors still come here and claim that the study of acai and fruit flies means that people should buy MonaVie. I’ve seen that here more than a few times…

  14. MonaVie Scam Says:

    Vogel and I were apparently typing at the same time…

    … what I didn’t think about is that Wellmune is hitching a ride on the MonaVie bandwagon. I had thought that MonaVie was hitching a ride another company with at least something a little worth recognizing (like the plant sterols in MonaVie Pulse. It seems like I assumed too much.

  15. Rasheed Says:

    Bah, there goes my comment. My fault for not clicking “open in new tab” lol.

    Anyway…

    Well said Vogel. I’ve also been told by someone in upline that the US Military helped develop Wellmune (or was it Mmun? I cant remember), and that the Canadian Military uses… one of the two products… as it’s basic biological defense against… I guess things like anthrax? *shrug*

    But of course, when one does a quick Google search, they find nothing of the sort. You’d think something like this would be in news articles everywhere! But nothing turned up except for highly irrelevant articles, including some one this website! (nothing against this site, it just had nothing on what I was looking for).

    So lies. And more lies. Every time I try to find out something about MonaVie: I find more lies. The lies will never stop…

    I think they’re hitching rides on each other. Wellmune counts on MonaVie for free advertising, and MonaVie counts on Wellmune to be the “big company who spend $250 million in research on this product!”

    It’s nothing more than two cons helping each other to make their cons better.

  16. mysterious Says:

    i herd the whole we spent 250 mil bit from cds by dallin larson, and i never once seen any papers on the research and the finished results, wheres the papers monavie? anyways like you said rasheed, lies and more lies

    the saying that the us military helped with the creation of the product mmun and that the canadian forces use 2 or more of the products in my mind should be a no brainer in the common sence field, but then again when you r trusting your upline its hard tonot believe it when your in the business and brainwashed, i was there and done that. but i got smarter since then.

  17. Vogel Says:

    OK. I looked into 2 of the publications listed on the Wellmune website and much as I expected they’re pretty horrifying. One of the articles was published in a journal that can be justifiably characterized as a cheap low-end rag journal (Journal of Applied Research), as confirmed by (a) the fact that it’s not indexed on PubMed/MEDLINE, and (b) the information listed on the journal’s information page shows that it’s a commercial publication from an obscure publisher that publishes no other journals and is not affiliated with any research or professional organization.
    http://www.wellmune.com/ColdFlustudyabstract.htm
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/journals/34874
    http://www.jarcet.com/aboutts.htm

    I haven’t gone through the details in the article yet but at this point it doesn’t matter what the results show, because it’s not a reputable publication. The other article I looked at that was listed on the Wellmune website featured an introductory editorial review singing the praises of beta-glucans. It appeared in a publication that cannot even rightly be called a journal, despite the fact that it has the word “journal” in its title — i.e., The Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association. http://www.wellmune.com/pdf/glucan-reprint5-2.pdf

    This journal is published by the American Nutraceutical Association, which is essentially a mouthpiece organization for the ‘nutraceutical’ industry; and industry that happens to include a wealth of quacks, hacks, and scammers. Needless to say, this rag is also not indexed on PubMed/MEDLINE. The author of the review article (who had the gall to throw in a little plug for beta-glucans as a cancer therapy) is Russell Blaylock, a rather infamous quack/conspiracy theorist and unlicensed physician. If you see Blaylock’s name associated with something, that’s basically a ‘seal of disapproval’ -– a red flag that whatever he’s talking about is total BS. Aside from his whacked out, scientifically-discredited theories about mercury fillings, water fluoridation, autism, vaccines, etc., he’s also a rabid political conspiracy theorist. He made some pretty detestable comments in a recent tirade during a guest appearance on the ultra-right, conspiracy theory-driven online radio show PrisonPlanetTV, hosted by nutjob Alex Jones.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gbuk6VBsEk&feature=player_embedded
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Blaylock
    http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/print?oid=77891

    In this article, Blaylock likens the Healthcare Reform Act, which he refers to as ‘Obamacare’, as: akin to Nazisim; draconian; “a eugenics program operating under the cover of a socialist dream”; perpetrated by “the ruling elite” who he condemns as “hardcore psychopaths and control freaks”. It’s hard to imagine a less credible source than this guy. He fits the quack/snakeoil-peddler profile to a tee.
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/andy-of-mayberry-shills-for-obamacare.html

    This certainly isn’t the caliber of research that would require a budget of $250 million. That claim must be pure BS. In fact, the study in JANA wasn’t even on Biothera’s Wellmune WGP. It was on a product called Imucell produced by Biopolymer Engineering, Inc. (Eagan, Minnesota). And it was a 21-day study conducted in mice, not humans, so this would cost less than $10,000 to execute.

    I don’t see that it’s worthwhile to waste our time digging into Wellmune’s research any further than this, unless anyone has further questions.

  18. Rasheed Says:

    No further questions, Vogel. Thanks for your research.

  19. Vogel Says:

    I found the full-text PDF of the other Wellmune study on the Journal of Applied Research website. Interesting that the Wellmune website wouldn’t post the link to the full article, but after looking at the results it’s easy to see why they didn’t.
    http://www.jarcet.com/articles/Vol9Iss1/FeldmanVol9No1.pdf

    The study enrolled 40 subjects; 13 of them didn’t finish -– that’s a very high 33% dropout rate for a 90-day study. Tables 3 and 4 show that Wellmune had no significant effects on any parameter (incidence/duration of colds, flu, respiratory) in the main comparisons with the placebo group. The only parameter for which they reported a significant effect was the number of work days missed due to a cold among the small subset of subjects that reported having a cold -– there were only 5 people in the Wellmune group and 4 in the placebo group that developed a cold and completed the study protocol. And yet Wellmune did not significantly affect the average duration of a cold. So in other words, Wellmune had no significant effect on the number of subjects who reported having a cold, the number of cold incidents, the duration of colds, or any parameter related to flu and respiratory episodes, and yet the company considers it a positive selling point that there was a seemingly random difference in work days missed due to colds among one group of 5 subjects and another group of 4 subjects. That’s laughable!

    Now let’s look at the authors’ conclusions:

    “Importantly, none of the subjects from the WGP group missed work or school during the 90-day study. In addition the WGP group’s physical component summary score improved more than the placebo group, and the WGP group had a significantly lower fever score.”

    The first conclusion, which they incredulously deemed as “important”, was based on results in a group of 9 subjects that developed a cold; only 5 of them took Wellmune — a subgroup far too small to base ANY conclusions on — and these findings were contradicted by the results for other key parameters.

    As for the second claim, the physical component summary score was 57.5 in the Wellmune group and 55.5 in the placebo group. That’s a 3.6% difference relative to placebo -– probably attributable to chance and clinically insignificant in any event. Furthermore, they did not report baseline values, so there could have been differences between between the groups before they started on Wellmune.

    As for the last conclusion that the “WGP group had a significantly lower fever score”, that was just an outright lie. In fact, in the results section the authors report (Table 4) that there was no significant difference in ‘total fever’ between the Wellmune and placebo groups. The authors clearly state in the methods section that the p-value cutoff for statistical significance was set at 0.05, which is standard. The p-values listed for the fever data in Table 4 were 0.295 and 0.068 in the intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, respectively. Both values are statistically non-significant.

    Combine all of that with the fact that Biothera ran the study, and the journal it was published in is a piece of garbage, and you’ve got something that’s barely worth the paper it’s written on — except perhaps to warn people.

  20. Anonymous Aussie Says:

    Rasheed – you seem to have embraced the information that’s been provided to you on this site and I’m personally extremely happy that you’re not going to be losing to Monavie any further.

    It’s become pretty obvious that you were mislead on a number of levels – firstly concerning the opportunity whereby you were never informed that the recruitment of other distributors is in fact pyramiding (which I’m sure was in contradiction to the claims the company would’ve have made and which I’ve heard first hand), the misrepresentations concerning the company’s revenue, about the product also with the illegal health claims and no doubt there’s more.

    I hope that I’m not being presumptuous in assuming that had these misrepresentations not been made, you may well have not have chosen to invest in the product and may not have pursued the “opportunity” and thus lost any money?

    If that’s the case, then to me this would constitutes fraud…

    My own friend acknowledges having had his sponsor provided poor business advice (he was taught to recruit other distributors rather than sell the product to customers), misrepresented the earning potential and that he was sold on the product based on the information he had been given (namely the high ORAC and the health claims being made by those in his upline, including Australia’s own Black Diamond and other distributors) and yet, he is still won’t entertain the idea of making a complaint.

    I would even like to see him to ask for all of his money back (for tools, products and everything he invested in – of which there has been much) and state all the specific reasons as to why he’s entitled to it but unfortunately, he continues to hold onto the (now feint) glimmer of hope that somehow he’s going to be able to make some of the money that was promoted as being possible for him to earn.

    The contract you signed was based on misinformation you received – are you interested in making a complaint to the authorities or even going back to Monavie and asking for a full refund of everything you spent?

    I think a lack of complaints from victims is obviously part of the reason why this company has been allowed fester like a cancer – but sadly the nature of the business is that people have been introduced to the business by someone they know, they’ve introduced people they know and I guess that makes it all the harder for victims to complain.

  21. Rasheed Says:

    Wow, Vogel. I hope you don’t mind if I share your findings with my upline!

    AA, thanks! I’m glad I could make someone happy lol.

    I’m going to try to complain to both TEAM customer support and MonaVie distributor support. I did indeed sign a contract based on misinformation–and I believe I should be compensated in some way for that.

    Thank you all for your support.

  22. Anonymous Aussie Says:

    Rasheed, what’s the reaction been from your upline with the information you’ve presented so far?

  23. Rasheed Says:

    I actually just got off the phone with my sponsor, who was my supervisor from my last job before I got laid off.

    Basically, he just said, “clarify everything with MonaVie customer support and TEAM customer support.”

    So… I’m going to do just that. If they don’t respond to me, I know why. If they do, I’ll be sure to let you guys know what their response to my proof is.

    Though funny… my sponsor had a good point about MonaVie’s revenue. I misread; Inc 500 shows MonaVie’s 2008 revenue to be $800 million. Of course, there’s no verification of that. Inc 500 is not the IRS. So there is a slight possibility for MonaVie to have made $1 billion in their first 3 years. Slight. But probably not at all.

    What he said that interested me was that, “it can be said both ways that neither side can prove their claims.”

    So of course my obvious rebuttal was, “but when a company uses its “billion dollars in three years” as a selling point, the burden of proof lays on them because anyone can say they made two billion dollars in two days, but not anyone can prove it.”

    And of course he had no response to that.

    So I’m going to take his advice and just talk with customer support. We’ll see how that goes.

  24. switch Says:

    TEAM obviously pays out their portion to their members…Did anyone get an income disclosure sheet from Team? I always asked for one and never got one except for the M.V. income disclosure sheet. I thought that was strange.

    :)

  25. Rasheed Says:

    LOL too true switch! Though it is out of the scope of this post, i’d also like to point out how incredibly misleading the IDS, disregarding the numbers.
    Perhaps it’s explained in the fine print at the bottom, but honestly, it’s freaking fine print. The average person pays attention to the huge numbers, not the text.

    Anyway, Distributor is someone who’s sponsored one person or no one. Star is someone who has someone in his left and right legs. Star 1000 is someone who has 1000 PV… in a ONE WEEK PERIOD. This is crucial. In order for a person to be a Star 1000 for a whole month, he needs at least 4000 PV in BOTH legs for the entire month! Since everyone is recommended 300 PV (used to be 200) per month, that’s 13 people buying 3 cases of juice per month. Or 20 with two cases. Or 40 with one case.

    That is ridiculous!

    I remember being present when one of my TEAM members was showing a plan, and due to the misleading nature of the IDS, he said, “after 5 people (buying 2 cases per month) get into your business, you’re Star 1000 and make an average income of x per year!”

    At that time I hadn’t analyzed the IDS as I have now, but now that I have, that’s just totally wrong. And many other distributors have said something very similar to that. The compensation plan from that angle becomes very convoluted. I’ve looked at many other MLM companies, and most of them pay weekly, but don’t have weekly “levels” such as MonaVie. They have monthly “levels” if anything.

    Just something I decided to point out :)

 
Comment Rules: Before commenting for the first time, please read this website's About page as well as the MonaVie Scam home page. Chances are, your comment has already been addressed elsewhere. Also, if your comment is not on the topic of the article, I may choose to not publish it. Please find an appropriate article in the MonaVie archives. If you can not find one, please to contact me and I'll work with you to get an article written.

At times comments might be disabled or moderated to a time more suiting with my schedule.

Previous: Dr. Alex Schauss, ORAC, and Freeze-Dried Acai
Next: MonaVie and the Placebo Effect