MonaVie M(Mun), Dr. Paul Clayton, and Wellmune

Hello there, I was pointed to your page by a UK colleague and thought I would respond to some of the points you raise.

1. Re fruit and veg, I think farmers markets are a good thing, and use them whenever possible. I agree that a good diet should be the first place to start, BUT … we all know that a lot of people just will not eat the right stuff, or listen to the government guidelines. They may not even like fruit, although I have a hard time understanding that. The real problem, however, is our low energy lifestyles. Cheap energy and high tech make it possible for many to get by on 2300 to 2500 kcals/day, and at that rate of calorific throughput its not easy to get to 5 portions /day, let alone the 9 a day that the Am Cancer Soc and others now recommend. A drink like Monavie’s can help.

2. You didn’t quite get the fruit being a problem bit. What I was referring to here was that imported and especially unprocessed foods can be disease vectors. Juices that have been at least flash pasteurised are a lot safer! Just ask a microbiologist.

3. Zoonotic diseases are on the rise, you can check with the EPA or, if you’re feeling keen, search PubMed. Don’t expect me to do all your work for you! You’re right about malaria, it got crammed onto the slide due to shortage of space; the point there was that like the zoonoses, its sphere of influence is likely to increase due to climate shift. Unfortunately, 2 slides got crammed into one as I only had 20 minutes to cover a whole range of topics.

3. No defences against these diseases. I’m not sure if this came over clearly, but the point I was trying to make here is that we have few if any defences against those zoonotic diseases that have yet to emerge. Vaccines can only be assembled once the new pathogen has been isolated and characterised.

4. Antibiotics are useless. Well, you got me there, I did exaggerate to make the point, and they do still work but the problem here (which is acknowledged by the CDC, WHO etc etc), is that antibiotic resistance is becoming more and more prevalent. It was, btw, the very eminent Prof George Poste who predicted the end of the age of antibiotics by, you guessed it, 2010!

5. Do your literature searches and you will find a huge number of studies on the beta glucans. There might be more papers on sugar, or even water, but I was talking here about functional ingredients; and the definition of functional generally used when talking about functional foods and beverages is functional over and above basic nutrition.

6. Your comment about differently priced beta glucans is short on substance. Yeast is complex stuff, and what you want is a high beta glucan content with little if any mannoproteins (which can trigger abreactions). You should also know that different yeast strains have different moelecular structures, and as the beta glucan – CR3 receptor interaction is classic lock and key pharmacology, this means that data derived from one product such as Wellmune, cannot automatically be used to support any other yeast or indeed any other mushroom or algal extract. You generally get what you pay for, and with Wellmune you have a very high level of scienc supporting it.

7. My fees. I consult with a large number of companies, and charge standard speaking fees. My day rate is #1000, and as I travelled from the UK and returned there it took me three working days. For this I charged the princely sum of #1500. That pays my bills but it does not, I can assure you, buy my integrity.

Finally, I have learned over the years that a little learning is indeed a dangerous thing, and learn enough new every day to remind me how little I do know. I note, but do not admire, your certainty.

All the best,
Paul

Thanks for taking the time to come here. I didn’t really expect to get a personal response.

1. I agree that people don’t eat enough fruit. I don’t think you’ll find people argue that point. My question is how much does one ounce of MonaVie really help? What about other juice alternatives? Because people in MonaVie circles talk about acai so much, what about V8 Fusion Acai Berry? Unlike MonaVie it isn’t limited to providing just fruit, but also has vegetables. If people aren’t eating enough fruits and vegetables, they still have a hole in their diets with MonaVie… no vegetables. Also many people have commented here that MonaVie is a substitute for eating fruit. This is a dangerous crutch as even MonaVie mentions that it’s not a substitute. For one you’ll find minimal fiber in MonaVie.

Beyond all that, there is the cost of MonaVie vs. other juices. If we agree that juices can “help”, we either need to quantify the amount of “help” that each juice provides, or the smart consumer should consider them all equal and take the lowest price (perhaps moving that MonaVie budget towards a gym membership, personal trainer, etc…)

2. I would agree with your statement on this point. I think you should have gone into it in your talk a bit more (though I understand you being pressed for time). Still, I think it’s fairly unusual that we’ve had big problems with disease in our fruit supply. If that is a concern, go back to the simple answer of farmer’s markets. I didn’t hear one mention of farmer’s markets being the best solution in your talk.

3a. (You had two #3s above, so I’m splitting up my responses.
I don’t expect you to do the work on Zoonotic diseases being on the rise, but I have to feel that if you are going to make the statement, you should have some source to back it up. It’s not that I believe it to be untrue, but I think some of it could be media hype.

Sure I can go search PubMed and probably find a lot more information on them than I could in the 1920s… but perhaps that’s because there are few more medical journals around now and the spread of information is faster. This is something like how there’s also a lot of belief that crime is on the rise in a lot of areas, where much of the time it’s the media increased presence in our lives (television, Internet, etc.) that brings each incident to people’s attention. Many people are surprised to learn that crime is down in those areas.

3b. I think you were clear, but the picture you painted was one of doom and destruction. What about praise for how quickly we’ve come up with a vaccine for swine flu? I don’t know the last time I’ve heard of SARS or bird flu in the media. I don’t follow Zoonotic diseases in general, but I did find that Wikipedia says, “Although millions of birds have become infected with the virus since its discovery, 262 humans have died from the H5N1 in twelve countries according to WHO data as of August 31, 2009.” (They sourced it too). Are we going to compare bird flu to the bubonic plague? Perhaps an increase in number of Zoonotic diseases is not the issue, but the severity and spread of them are.

4. I did not argue that antibiotic resistance is becoming more and more prevalent. I even mentioned that is the case in my comparison to oil (oil supplies are dropping, but we are getting smarter about how to use the supply). Antibiotic resistance is an issue, but I was just commenting on the sensationalizing of it. I heard you give credit to Prof. George Poste on his prediction. I’m not a betting man, but I don’t think Las Vegas would give him very good odds that every antibiotic on the face of the earth will end by December 31st.

5. I was simply pointing out a basic error in your talk. I understand that you meant the context to be different. Maybe I missed it in the speech (and I can’t currently listen to it again), but I didn’t hear you point out that the studies were done on beta glucans in general and not on Wellmune itself. It made it sound like there were a number of studies on Wellmune.

6. It seems like you are making a differential between Wellmune and other beta glucans here. However, in the point above it sounds like you applying all the research on beta glucans to be applicable to Wellmune. I’m sure the research is since Wellmune is a type of beta glucans. However, if, from the above point, we have all this research on the value of beta glucans, then shouldn’t we be taking the beta glucans with all the research behind it? It doesn’t look like all those studies were on the Wellmune version. I couldn’t find one article on PubMed on Wellmune. I couldn’t find any details as to how it differs or if it differs from WGP 3-6. For £40.77, this source offers 125 capsules of the Wellmune brand specifically:

“Each Bio-Glucans Primmuno capsule contains 250mg of Wellmune WGP (equivalent to 200mg beta 1.3/1.6 glucans) from baker’s yeast.”

I think I stand strong on my earlier point. If you want Wellmune WGP, a year supply of the same quantity used in studies that I saw is available for £119 or about $189 USD (giving a rough estimate of today’s exchange rate.) A year supply of MonaVie is roughly $1500 per person… $5000 for a family of four. It would seem that a wise consumer in this economy would be better off spending around $350 per person on the juice of their choice (or better yet, fruit) plus Wellmune WGP… unless there are studies to show that MonaVie’s combination of the two in M(mun) is better. I’m not aware of any such studies.

6b. I wanted to make another point here, so hence the sub-point. You point out that logically Wellmune studies can’t be applied to beta glucans in general because it’s more specialized (or that’s what I took from the lock-and-key pharmacology – I’ll ask my wife, a pharmacist, later). By the same logic, can we say that Wellmune studies can not apply to MonaVie M(mun) since MonaVie’s juices introduces other factors that may inhibit the effectiveness of Wellmune (various vitamins for instance). Isn’t it fair to that conusmers ask for studies that encompass the totality of the product before they plunk down a significant amount of their hard-earned money?

7. I understand the need for you to charge for your time. I would do the same. Ironically I wrote an article about this very thing on another website of mine, where I came to the same conclusion in that it’s a fair wage for your time and doesn’t necessarily impact your opinion. I added it because it was something that should be considered. I wasn’t really going to point it out, but my wife (again, a pharmacist) mentioned that in the medical industry, companies seek out doctors who will sell their integrity. Considering the conference was more of a marketing piece to MonaVie distributors than one before a medical review board, it would seem to me that they could have found a few doctors would could support the views that you did. After all, a lot of the points in the presentation, people not eating enough fruit, resistence to antibiotics, are easily defendable points that nearly any doctor would have no problem standing behind.

It’s not often that people give intelligent debate that has the chance of actually advancing our knowledge of MonaVie. MonaVie distributors when spreading the information on MonaVie often talk with certainty that drinking 4 ounces of juice is equal to eating 13 fruits (it’s really the ORAC score and which 13 fruits is up in the air). They also talk with certainty that acai has the protein profile of an egg (meaning amino acids and such, I’m guessing), ignoring the fact that there are 0 grams of protein in a serving.

It’s with that in mind that I do write with an air of certainty. I don’t think you’ll find me advocating anything unhealthy. Instead I’m advocating a way to bring health to the masses without sacrificing their wallets. Any way you slice it, it’s easier to be healthy in the long-term if you have money for the right foods, proven medicine, and health care. I hypothesize that homeless people are more exposed to disease. If you think that’s irrelevant or off-topic, the reason is that you don’t get the emails about MonaVie that I do from friends of MonaVie distributors who are at bankruptcy buying expensive juice, tools to sell the juice, airfare and conference fees, etc…

Edward,

Before I address any particular thing you mentioned, I feel that I should mention that you need to list your name and distributor ID when posting in blogs… at least according to Monavie:

Distributors may post text and videos on Blogs, Social Networks, and Video Websites so long as he or she has passed our Compliance certification course.

All text postings must include the Distributor’s name and ID number.

Of course a Blue Diamond distributor should be a shining example and comply with that.

——

With that out of the way, I would like to say that I appreciate your honesty.

However, I notice like most distributors you talk in generics when you say, “great health benifits” that “coencidentally” occurred. This can be considered a testimony which MonaVie and the FTC agree you shouldn’t do. If you aren’t prepared to talk about the great health benefits, then how can we know what they are?

Keep in mind that there were doctors and Dallin Larsen involved in Royal Tongan Limu. It might be worth noting that company was fined millions for illegal health claims.

There are a lot of charismatic people in the world, and I’m sure the speeches by the doctor and CEO were quite convincing. The speeches by Jim Jones at Jonestown were also convincing. I’m not trying to compare the two, but merely pointing out that charismatic speeches do not make juices healthy.

If you read my original MonaVie article, you know that I simply asked questions and gave MonaVie every benefit of the doubt. The thing is that no one presented scientific evidence that supported MonaVie (and stood up to scrutiny), while a lot of people brought scientific evidence to show that MonaVie doesn’t provide value for it’s money. Read through the comments, and follow the discussion and you’ll see how my opinion is swayed in the comments.

How did MonaVie respond to that fair shake? They tried legal threats to try to silence my voice in a widely covered event. Also in the comments of their blogger admits that a MonaVie employee called me “an annoying douche” on my site posing as an unaffiliated person who had never tried MonaVie (read the comments in that link). If you want to judge good vs. evil, I think that’s a great a place to start.

I’m not suggesting that I’m infallable with this site, but I’m merely giving another side of the story. MonaVie is welcome to comment here. MonaVie’s chief blogger, Shante Schroeder, and I have a fairly good e-mail relationship going. Thus I would suggest that if I am incorrect, MonaVie is still the evil one here for not clarifying these questions.

Entrepeneur of the year is something, but ask yourself why MonaVie didn’t when Product of the Year. This site is less about evaluating the business of MonaVie than the value of the product. On a personal level, I’ve admitted that MonaVie has a great business:

• They get distributors to pay for advertising (via brocures and other materials)
• They pay a vast majority of their workforce below minimum wage (via the MonaVie Income Disclosure Statement)
• They found a way to motivate their workforce unlike most other companies with dreams of being millionaires even though the odds are closer to winning the lottery than being realistic
• They found a product that is difficult to objectively quantify the value unlike a product like a pan from Pampered Chef.
• They find a way to give 100% complete truths like acai has the protein profile of an egg, so distributors will echo that despite the fact that MonaVie has no protein. You’ll also see distributors forget (whether intentionally or not) the “profile” part claiming that it is equal to an egg.

So, I’m saying that entrepeneur and crook are not mutual exclusive. A great business plan encompassing all the above does not justify the value of MonaVie’s product.

Lastly, please note that I’m only putting out facts. I cite the sources for almost everything that I say that is not a pure logical argument. I don’t think I can be considered the evil person for mentioning that scientific tests on MonaVie are not good. If you’ve read the rest Lazy Man and Money, you know that I’ve written many, many articles to help people manage their money… Here’s a whole section of them. How is that evil?

To “Dr.” Paul Clayton. It’s now apparent why you would debase yourself through affiliation with a company like Monavie. You are a victim of your own mediocrity. I am appalled by your superficial unprofessional comments in response to this post. You are an alarmist and a crass opportunist.

Clayton said: “Re fruit and veg, I think farmers markets are a good thing, and use them whenever possible. I agree that a good diet should be the first place to start, BUT … we all know that a lot of people just will not eat the right stuff, or listen to the government guidelines. They may not even like fruit, although I have a hard time understanding that. The real problem, however, is our low energy lifestyles. Cheap energy and high tech make it possible for many to get by on 2300 to 2500 kcals/day, and at that rate of calorific throughput its not easy to get to 5 portions /day, let alone the 9 a day that the Am Cancer Soc and others now recommend. A drink like Monavie’s can help.”

And your point is what exactly? That Monavie can substitute for a lack of fruit in one’s diet? You are apparently advocating fruit juice as a substitute for fruit, and yet there are many far more nutritious fruit juices which sell for a fraction of Monavie’s price and would apparently do a much better job nutritionally and economically. That you would ignore these clearly superior options in favor of Monavie completely undermines your credibility. Shame on you! The rest of your nonsense about “cheap energy” and “calorific throughput” was basically unintelligible; and the American Cancer Society DOES NOT recommend 9 servings of fruit a day. That is a blatant lie. Your rapidly eroding credibility just took another huge hit.

Clayton said: “You didn’t quite get the fruit being a problem bit. What I was referring to here was that imported and especially unprocessed foods can be disease vectors. Juices that have been at least flash pasteurised are a lot safer! Just ask a microbiologist.”

Pathetic comment! If you are advocating processed fruit juice over unprocessed fruit, you are very much in the minority. And pasteurization in no way distinguishes Monavie from other fruit juices like grape juice, which provide more of what Monavie pretends to contain (eg, polyphenols and antioxidants) at a fraction of the price.

Clayton said: “Zoonotic diseases…”

…have absolutely nothing to do with Monavie. Please don’t waste our time with red herrings. If you have something to say about Monavie curing or preventing zoonotic disease, then come out and say so. If not, then you shouldn’t be mentioning the word “disease”.

Clayton said: “…are on the rise, you can check with the EPA or, if you’re feeling keen, search PubMed. Don’t expect me to do all your work for you!”

Did I just hear you right??? Did you actually have the gall to say “don’t expect me to do all the work for you”? You come here pretending to be some kind of authority and yet you can’t even make the effort to provide a single PubMed citation or a link to a review article to back up your claim? We have been backing up what we say with references and diligent research for well over a year, and yet you can’t “do all the work”??? You are a disingenuous lazy HACK!

Clayton said: “You’re right about malaria, it got crammed onto the slide due to shortage of space; the point there was that like the zoonoses, its sphere of influence is likely to increase due to climate shift. Unfortunately, 2 slides got crammed into one as I only had 20 minutes to cover a whole range of topics.”

That’s a convenient excuse. Blame your shoddy research on a slide malfunction. God forbid you should have to admit the truth, HACK! How about exercising some personal responsibility for the claims you make instead of always having a convenient excuse with which to backpedal? Why are you even talking about malaria at a Monavie conference? I’ll tell you why; to dishonestly imply that Monavie can prevent or treat such cnditions.

Clayton said: “Antibiotics are useless. Well, you got me there, I did exaggerate to make the point, and they do still work but the problem here (which is acknowledged by the CDC, WHO etc etc), is that antibiotic resistance is becoming more and more prevalent. It was, btw, the very eminent Prof George Poste who predicted the end of the age of antibiotics by, you guessed it, 2010!”

Well George Poste was obviously dead wrong, and no responsible physician would EVER make such an alarmist claim as the one you made about antibiotics being useless. Your claim was nothing more than a loathsome dishonest fear-mongering tactic, although you whitewash it by calling it an “exaggeration”. Once again, your credibility slides into the toilet. You do a grave injustice by implying that antibiotics are useless but that Monavie can prevent zoonotic diseases. You truly disgust me.

Clayton said: “Do your literature searches and you will find a huge number of studies on the beta glucans.”

Done. I don’t see anything in that research to demonstrate that Wellmune is superior to any other inexpensive form of beta-glucan; nor is their evidence that Monavie M-mun contains a significant amount of beta-glucan or that it has any benefits whatsoever.

Clayton said: “Your comment about differently priced beta glucans is short on substance. Yeast is complex stuff, and what you want is a high beta glucan content with little if any mannoproteins (which can trigger abreactions)…You generally get what you pay for, and with Wellmune you have a very high level of science supporting it.”

No, the point was made well; it is you who is short on substance. Show us one piece of scientific evidence that backs up you statement that “you get what you pay for” with respect to beta-glucans. Where is your scientific evidence that Wellmune is superior to any other less expensive form of beta-glucan; there is none, and you know it.

Clayton said: “My fees. I consult with a large number of companies, and charge standard speaking fees. My day rate is #1000, and as I travelled from the UK and returned there it took me three working days. For this I charged the princely sum of #1500. That pays my bills but it does not, I can assure you, buy my integrity.”

You apparently have no integrity to sell, and given your lack of credibility and expertise, I can’t imagine why anyone would pay you a nickel to speak at an event unless of course it’s because they know that you’ll tell LIES to a roomful of people for less than $1,000 a day – is that different from what any other run-of-the mill prostitute would charge?

Clayton said: “Finally, I have learned over the years that a little learning is indeed a dangerous thing, and learn enough new every day to remind me how little I do know. I note, but do not admire, your certainty.”

Steeped with irony. I have no doubt that you have been reminded daily of the limitations of your knowledge. I’ll second that reminder. And you certainly seem to have the potential to be dangerous.

The videos have been pulled already (I still have access to them elsewhere though). It was probably a prudent move for the company to have erased this evidence because the videos were rife with illegal implications about Wellmune and Monavie as a preventive measure for infectious diseases, respiratory tract infections, and even anthrax. Clayton also claimed that Wellmune “has FDA GRAS approval”, implying that it is FDA-approved for the treatment of infectious diseases. He says that drugs and vaccines “don’t work”.

I also took a look at what “Dr” Clayton is passing off as his CV. There is no indication that he has ever authored even a single research publication.
http://www.drpaulclayton.com/scripts/paulcv.aspx

The deleted Monavie videos introduced Clayton as a fellow of “the Royal Society of Medicine”. Sounds like he’s a licensed MD right? Wrong. The RSM has nothing to do with physician licensure; it’s a pay-to-play medical education organization.
http://www.rsm.ac.uk/membersh/joining.php

Clayton’s website says that he has a PhD, but conveniently, there is no mention of what discipline the alleged degree is in and from which institution it was received. I’m doubling down that it was some generic mail order diploma mill.

The video also describes Clayton as the “Joint President of the EU Commemoration Foundation”. A quick Google search was unable to identify any organization by this name. Another website describes Clayton as “Scientific Director” of the “Szent Gyorgi Institute” in Budapest. A Google search finds no evidence that the Institute exists; just random 5 hits, all mentioning Clayton.
http://www.fabresearch.org/view_item.aspx?item_id=1244
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Szent+Gyorgi+Institute%22

In the Monavie video, Clayton claims “my natural habitat is the university and the gleaming spires of Oxford”. In fact, Clayton’s CV describes him as a “visiting professor” from “Oxford Brookes University”, a lowly institution that has absolutely nothing to do with the gleaming spires of the illustrious “University of Oxford”. Who it is that he is “visiting” during his “visiting professorship” is never mentioned.
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/about
http://www.ox.ac.uk

This site claims that Clayton was a “Senior Scientific Advisor to the UK government’s Committee on Safety of Medicines”.
http://www.healthdefence.com/who_is_paul.html

However. a search through the Committee’s meeting archives finds no mention of Clayton.
http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Committees/Medicinesadvisorybodies/CommitteeonSafetyofMedicines/index.htm

This site claims that Clayton was the Director of the Nutritional Therapy Council.
http://www.icyou.com/channel/dr-paul-clayton

Quackwatch, a reputable consumer watchdog website, considers the Nutritional Therapy Council a “Questionable Organization”.
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html

We have seen this kind of resume fraud among Monavie’s principals too many times before (e.g., Ralph Carson, Alexander Schauss, Jose Allongo, Lou Niles, etc.).

Mr. Clayton is also listed as chief of the advisory board of Biothera, the maker of Wellmune.
http://www.biotherapharma.com/healthcare/HealthcareScientificAdvisors.htm

Presumably he receives some form of compensation for his services. I have yet to see any examples of Mr. Clayton disclosing that he has a financial conflict of interest with respect to Monavie M-Mun and Wellmune WGP. That’s deceptive and a no-no according to the FTC.

I don’t want to argue with any particular fact other than the fact that Dr. Clayton has disclosed his earnings here. It’s deceptive that he didn’t do it during his talk, but I’m not sure if the FTC requires it to be done for speakers (and how they require that disclosure).

Not to minimize some of these, but some of the biggest things I find in this research are:

Dr. Clayton doesn’t seem to be an Medical Doctor as he points out. Most people might think that the PhD shows that he is a medical doctor, but a PhD can be in Spanish for all we know.
Passing off “Oxford” as if he graduated or was affiliated with Oxford University.
His affiliate with Wellmune… He didn’t mention it in the speech (as far as I saw) and didn’t mention it here. There’s significant bias and that might explain why he’s trying to differentiate beta glucans. So of course he’s going to say things like “You get what you pay for” with regard to Wellmune.

I’m going to go back and add in the comments that Dr. Paul Clayton sent me anticipating that they’d be uploaded to the comments.

[Note: This is a response that I got from Dr. Clayton. He subscribed to get email comments (which you can do with the check box below), but I think he believed that replying to those emails got uploaded to the site for discussion. That isn't the case, and I've talked with him about publishing his comments, so here they are...]

Comment from Feb 2nd to my response:

“Hi there, and thanks for your considered reply which I enjoyed. I am dashing between appointments so this is just a brief and incomplete response, just wanted to share a reference with you on the zoonotic issue which I think is real and not just hype. Have a look at ‘Biodiversity Loss Affects Global Disease Ecology’ by Montira J. Pongsiri, Joe Roman, Vanessa O. Ezenwa, Tony L. Goldberg, Hillel S. Koren, Stephen C. Newbold, Richard S. Ostfeld, Subhrendu K. Pattanayak, and Daniel J. Salkeld.
It is in the December 2009 issue of BioScience(http://www.aibs.org/bioscience/current_issue.html)

I take your point about the swiftness of the development of a bird flu vaccine, but then again it was just another flu variant. As and when a really serious pandemic takes off, epidemilogical modelling and past history clearly show that vaccine development will not be able to keep up with the emergence of viral changes (drift and/or shift) UNLESS current work on a pan-virulent strain vaccine pays off. Would be great if that happens, but what about the other known and unknown pathogens? The paper above indicates why not just spread but also frequency are likely to accelerate.

More brief comments – farmers markets are a good thing, no question – but they don’t exist on the same scale in the UK where I am based, so guess I don’t prioritise them as much as an American might do.

Antibiotic resistance …It ain’t just Poste; my colleagues here include consultant microbiologists who specialise in antibiotic resistance, and they are universally pessimistic. Of course it won’t be Dec 31st – that was a humourous reference, and very obviously wrong! But the general drift is clear, and widely understood and accepted.

Beta glucan studies. Acrtually, I was citing specifically Wellmuine studies. Go to http://www.biotherapharma.com, most of them are listed there. Fascinating reading, and good science.

Lots more to talk about, and I liked your point about the validity of betas glucans in a food matrix. All this has been covered elsewhere, but my time is up now. I will try to come back to this at a later date.
All the best
Paul”

———————-

[Editor's note: This comment came about 90 minutes after the previous one. There were no other comments here, so let's consider it part of the same comment]

“I’m back, this will probably be my last response as I have some major deadlines to beat but I hate to walk out on a good discussion so here goes.

Your point about costs is something I don’t really feel qualified to talk about, I’m not commercial and have no idea about the cost of ingredients, processing packaging etc. This is, as I believe they say, above my pay grade. However, I do know that people are generally more likely to maintain good compliance for sopmething they have paid for, than for cheap or free stuff, and this could be in Monavie’s favour. Being part of the organisation also helps compliance; any belief system does.

I’m not too concerned about the fibre argument, for the following reasons …. There are, as you may be aware, at least 6 categories of dietary fiber, and in general the most important typers appear to be the fermentable carbohydrates. These don’t occur to any significant extent in fruits anyway, so their absence in pulp-free juices is probably no big deal.

Too early to know, frankly, whether bird flu will be a bubonic plague-type of problem or not, but it does seem unlikely. I was not in any case making this comparison, I thought that was obvious – I was talking about the role of infection in history. What does concern me is that burgeoning human populations, expanding mass transit systems combined with climate shift plus the background ongoing failure of the antibiotics – make up a frightening pattern. Again, go talk to microbiologists and epidemiologists who specialise in infectious illness – there is a huge concern.

Re beta glucans, you specifically cite PharmaNord. Duh … they buy their beta glucans from Biothera, as do most other reputable supplement companies. And yes there are other manufacturers, but look at the label when you buy (and that is general advice). Look, inter alia, at the beta glucan content in % terms; and then look at the price. Too high a %/$ ratio is a sure sign that the label claim is bogus, too many of the products I have seen tested fail to provide what they promise. A word to the wise ….if you don’t believe me, buy them and have them tested yourself.

Finally, I know there are plenty of people out there who are either not interested in the science (which is, I admit, complex and not always clear); or whose vested interests make them impervious to reason – and this on both sides of the debate. I see that you are someone who considers the issues reasonably carefully, and I trust that you understand that I do this also. I don’t really have the time to contine here, but if you want to use my email to talk to me directly please feel free to do so.”

This video still works:
http://www.monavietv.com/monavietv?from=widget&mode=video&vid=6597
Almost 11 minutes long.

Back after a few days at work. MonaVie Scam, I respect what you say (even if I don’t always agree with you) beacuse you join in the dialogue. Vogel, on the other hand, and on the basis of his/her entertaining contributions, seems to be more interested in heat than light. I have seen plenty of blowhards locking horns on the net before, but never encountered such a prime example at first hand.

One of the key aspects of the scientific method is to try to remove, or at least reduce, subjectivity from the argument. This is why we use placebo controls and double blinds, for example. Vogel is too obviously the victim of his own rage to see at all clearly, and name-calling is no substitute for reasoned debate.

I have never claimed to be a medical doctor; my doctorate is in clinical pharmacology, and for the last 30 years I have specialised in the pharmacology of food and food derivates. My UK affilation is with Oxford Brookes, and – from the autumn – with a research group established at Oxford University. The Szent-Gyorgyi Institute is actually being built, even as we speak, in Budapest, with completion scheduled for next February; the name was granted to us by the great Albert Szent-Gyorgyi’s only living relative. The European Commemoration Foundation is a translation from the Hungarian, it is a Hungarian historical / political organisation and I doubt you would find it using English search terms. FDA GRAS does not imply medical usage, it means Gerally Regarded as Safe, a tag generally used to describe materials for supplemental or fortification purposes. Of course I advise Biothera, I have never tried to conceal this and it is indeed all posted, very clearly and obviously, on the web. All my points about the quality of beta glucans stand, I suggest you visit the pharma website for details.

Und zo weiter. Vogel, you have done a little homework but not enough; you are clever, but not wise. You haven’t even been able to find any of my papers, so here’s a clue; try Pubmed.

If you are really interested in a discussion, I’d be happy to talk with you. The emotional nature of your responses, unfortunately, gives the impression that you actually want to shut off debate. I do not know if this is because you feel that your intellectual position is threatened, or your vested interests. It would be interesting to know.

All the best,
Paul

My take on this is that it seems from the videos that Dr. Paul Clayton took every opportunity to do what I often see the smarter MonaVie distributors do. They don’t tell lies (at least the smarter ones), but they put a half-truth out there hoping that the audience will fill in the rest of the picture mentally. Vogel makes a good point that when you talk of academics and Oxford in the same sentence, 99.9% of the people assume Oxford University, one of the most prestigous learning institutions in the world. It’s similar to a MonaVie distributor saying that acai has the protein profile of an egg, but not mentioning that there are 0 grams of protein in MonaVie. It’s misleading people – plain and simple – and it’s one of the reasons why I created this site.

If I had it in my nature, I’d probably respond as Vogel did. I think he has a right to be upset after uncovering all the half-truths that were mentioned. As Dr. Clayton says, he goes through no effort to hide that he’s a Wellmune Advisor. However, he also made no effort to disclose that either. No reputable Doctor of Phamacology would claim that “antibiotics are useless.” It’s nice that Dr. Clayton mentioned it was an exaggeration here, but MonaVie distributors can choose to take that at face value in their sales pitches. When a doctor says that a treatment is useless, the average person believes it.

I can see numerous MonaVie distributors spreading the word that antibiotics are dead and the only thing that can stop the next plague is MonaVie. If you think I’m wrong, remember that back in April of last year MonaVie distributors were claiming that MonaVie helped with Swine Flu… and that was before anyone knew that M(Mun) was on the horizon. Don’t believe me? See:

http://twitter.com/MonaVie_Shop/statuses/1646185316
http://twitter.com/ChiaraGravell/statuses/1648656877
http://twitter.com/johnmontgomery1/statuses/1659442421

I’m very happy to say that in 6 weeks or so, I’ll be at The American Pharmacists Association Annual Meeting with my wife (who is a Doctor of Pharmacology like Dr. Clayton). She’s suggested that I shouldn’t be shy about mentioning how MonaVie is being pitched as a medicine. I haven’t quite decided to what extent I wish to talk about it… but I might be handing out business cards with this website name on it. I know a few pharmacists have seen this are pretty appalled about what is going on.

For what it’s worth, one of the biggest questions of PhD to me is whether it’s exactly a “PhD.” For example my wife has a PharmD (Doctor of Pharmacy), not a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy).

It looks like European countries are somewhat split on the distinction. The Czech Republic has PharmDr for instance. However, Hungary, which is a country that Dr. Clayton referred to definitely seems to have a “Pharm D” (from the Wikipedia link that I reference previously).

I couldn’t find information on the UK’s actual title, which is fair for Clayton to use, but for those of us in the US, the PhD for a Doctor of Pharmacy is considered very strange.

I think Vogel was right to question why you didn’t list your graduate studies anywhere. It is a bit of admission. If I went to Harvard undergrad and then went to U of Massachutts for a graduate degree, I wouldn’t ignore that the graduate degree was from U of Massachusetts. This was clearly done on your (Paul Clayton’s) website.

I think there is something very different to saying that out antibiotics are becoming less effective and that they are “useless.” I don’t think anyone (me or Vogel) is claiming to be unaware of bacteria becoming more resistent to antibiotics. That fact that you say we are “unaware” of such a thing is a way to paint us as ignorant, which isn’t true at all.

It looks like those Biothera research papers clearly reference “BETA 1,3/1,6 GLUCAN” (here’s an example). Without needing to read the study at all for validity, I can find many sources of “BETA 1,3/1,6 GLUCAN” available all over the Internet. If you want to claim that Wellmune’s version is better than others, I would expect the tests include at least three groups… a Wellmune group, a generic group, and a placebo group. It’s one thing to show that Wellmune is better than a placebo (and that’s important), but Wellmune also has to show it’s brand is better than others… or else the smart consumer should buy the cheapest version available.

This is a problem that MonaVie has as well. Proof against a placebo is not as important as proof against significantly cheaper and widely available products.

Dr. Paul Clayton is probably coming into this a little late. Vogel has been able to show numerous MonaVie transgressions over the last 2-3 years. Many of these transgressions include distributors (and even company employees) creating lies that not only put people into financial dire straits, but also endangers their health (many people have said that they’ve stopped taking their medication after MonaVie). I think it’s extremely rational for Vogel to use the tone he does given the circumstances. If you were to go back two years and read his posts, they were much more tempered. However, when charlatan after charlatan are causing consumers harm, it’s easy to see why he’s not Mr. Nice Guy.

While on the topic of Vogel (and myself), it does make sense to be anonymous. We aren’t the ones arguing that people should spend $45 for 25 ounces of juice.

Where is the straw man that says we expect fruit juice can cure disease? That’s the exact opposite of anything we’ve said. It’s the MonaVie distributors that are claiming fruit juice can cure disease. If you do a search on Google for “MonaVie and” and see what the suggestions (in the drop down) are, you’ll see, “diabetes”, “cancer”, “autism”, “fibromyalgia”, “MS”, “ADHD”, and “lupus”. That is 7 of the 10 topics it lists. The others are Oprah (who has sent a cease and desist to MonaVie to stop using her name), pregnancy (a fair thing to search for), and weight loss (probably another claim of distributors as MonaVie can not be considered a weight loss tool in any way).

I don’t think anyone here claims that fruit juices aren’t helpful. The question is whether one ounce of MonaVie is equal to drinking 8 ounces of another juice. From a consumer cost perspective MonaVie has to show that to be the case. We don’t care about the generic case of juice – it’s not worth debating because we agree. You just get to feel good about proving a point that it irrelevant to the discussion.

Dr. Paul Clayton, will you go on record as saying that MonaVie M(mun) has more scientific benefits than the equivalent amount of Wellmune with other juices that are around $4-5? That’s the main question that a smart consumer would care about. It’s one that seems to have been avoided. What about generic versions of Wellmune and $4-5 juice?

A few other very suspicious details regarding Clayton’s CV:

1. He claimed to have “a degree” in medical pharmacology from University of Edinburgh. However, a Google search and a search of the University of Edinburgh website yields zero hits for “medical pharmacology”. Apparently, the university does not offer such a degree. They may have at some point, but if they did, a Google search should have yielded hits from other graduates who list this degree from U. Edinburgh in their CV.

2. Clayton claimed to have graduated from U. Edinburgh “summa cum laude”. In general, this term is used only for baccalaureate degrees. According to Wikipedia, “summa cum laude” is not used in the UK and many other countries in Europe. A Google search for “University of Edinburgh + summa cum allude” yields zero hits.

3. Clayton’s website states that he received his degree from U. Edinburgh “PRIOR” to obtaining his PhD. It does not mention which university awarded the alleged PhD or what discipline the PhD was in. Curiously, when confronted by this detail, Clayton claimed that his PhD was in fact in medical pharmacology and was awarded by U of Edinburgh. However, see #1.

4. Clayton claims to be a “visiting fellow” with Oxford Brookes University. However, the review article that he mentioned recently [Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6:1235-53), in which he lists an affiliation with Oxford Brookes U., shows that he has a Gmail e-mail address. However, if he were a faculty member at Oxford Brookes University, his e-mail address should be from the domain “@brookes.ac.uk”.

5. In one document from 2009, the same year he claimed to be a visiting fellow with Oxford Brookes U., Clayton also claimed to be a “visiting PROFESSOR” at the University of Debrecen (a medical school in Hungary).
http://www.cnelm.co.uk/courses/Attachments/Cancer%20Care%20Seminar%20Series.pdf

6. On Clayton’s website, the title line in the browser reads “Dr. Paul Clayton: DOCTOR and nutrition scientist. This is very misleading as it appears as though he is purposely misrepresenting himself as physician rather than the holder of an academic doctorate (and it is highly questionable at this point whether he even holds a doctorate).
http://www.drpaulclayton.com/scripts/index.aspx

The details above, in addition to those discussed previously, are very strong evidence of fraud.

I tried to find out if there’s some idiomatic meaning to that Alexander Pope quote. I couldn’t find one. Taken literally, it seems to mean, “I’m am great. Who are you and how are you great?”

Sadly Dr. Paul Clayton doesn’t realize that this is an attempt of argument from authority. If you follow that, you find that this is a fallacy of defective induction, which “produces a faulty generalization” (paraphrased from that Wikipedia source).

This is fitting in two ways, as I see it:

1. Vogel has shown pretty effectively that Dr. Paul Clayton is not an authority (i.e. not his Highness’ dog at Kew), but instead has lead everyone to believe he is. Thus he’s not even doing a good job of using the argument from authority.

2. The argument from authority doesn’t hold any weight in the debate.

Dr. Paul Clayton again makes the mistake of asking Vogel to reveal himself. He doesn’t note that Vogel isn’t trying to represent himself or any product here in anyway. It doesn’t matter if Vogel’s comments are the product of 1000 monkeys typing. The point of the message is where the importance lies. After all, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Vogel,
Please share with us your background (ie education,profession,degree). If you wish to request full disclosure on Clayton then it is only fair that you do the same.
Thank you,

Carter said: “Vogel, Please share with us your background (ie education, profession, degree). If you wish to request full disclosure on Clayton then it is only fair that you do the same. Thank you”

First, who is “us”? I don’t hear anyone else making this request for my background information, so why create the illusion of numbers when you could have simply said “share with ME”.

Second, the day I accept money from an MLM to stand on stage, spew a bunch of blatant BS, and try to sanctify it all based on my credentials, then it might be fair to request my “full disclosure”. Unlike Paul Clayton, however, I’m not making claims to promote any particular product and I haven’t been paid a nickel. But of course you know this already; the request for disclosure is just a red herring to divert this discussion away from where it belongs -– Paul Clayton and his fraudulent resume. Perhaps you are even Mr. Clayton (or his proxy) trolling under a new username, now that he has been proven to be a fraud.

Third, you fail to acknowledge that it has been conclusively demonstrated that Clayton has fraudulently misrepresented his credentials. A simple acknowledgment of this fact would be in order instead of throwing out red herrings about my credentials. As far as Clayton is concerned, the only credentials I really need are the ability to conduct a Google search, since this is all it took to demonstrate conclusively that he is a liar and a fraud.

Lastly, perhaps you didn’t stop to ponder that this thread is not about me; it’s about Monavie and Paul Clayton’s paid-for promotional claims about the product. Please stay on topic and avoid silly tangents about other people’s credentials.

PS – Lazyman, I liked your analogy. Can I just be known as “Vogel – the giant space octopus from the planet Kelmar” from now on?

Fair enough, I do have a question for Vogel & lazyman. What sparked all of this?

Vogel, my favorite space octopus, you are forgetting that the facts will never be enough for the Mona-bots, because (as Dallin said) “Facts are the enemy of truth”!!!
Enjoy planet Kelmar.

I did not wish to take the topic off course. I just was interested in knowing what drives the other folks on the site(lazyman has pointed out why he started this site ).

I have one simple question left, have you or would you be willing to drink M(Mun)? Put aside your distaste of Clayton and take a look at the product it self and put it to the test. I wonder if you drink the product for 2 months if you will have any positive impact. Want to get ride of the “mind over matter” aspect, then give the drink to a kid. THey don’t know what to expect, see if a difference in health can be documented.

Would this be something you might be open to?

My offer is to Lazyman or Vogel, however if they are not willing to step up then we shall talk about having you run the test and posting to this site for all to see.

Have you had any other products from Monavie?

Food Tech (he’s commented here in the past) has already run the test. If you want a copy of how MonaVie fared in independent lab tests, send an e-mail to Foodtech101@Yahoo.com. Here’s a hint… it didn’t go well.

FYI – Dr. Clayton will be speaking at the MonaVie Indianapolis Regional on March 13.

http://monaviemediacenter.com/register-today-for-indianapolis-regional-meeting

Thanks FT. On the one hand, I would find it revolting and a painful waste of time; but on the other, the pathological behavior in that auditorium would be fascinating to witness.

The fact that Clayton has now been shown to have an ONGOING finacial relationship with Monavie adds weight to what I had said about him before; i.e., he’s a lying money-grubbing whore. Notice that when he was first confronted here about his undisclosed financial relationship with Monavie, he only confessed to having received a onetime payment of $1,500. Obviously he was aware that his finacial relationship with Monavie would be an ongoing one. So once again, we have evidence that Clayton is dishonest (not that any more evidence was needed).

John, Exactly how would he “get his azz whipped”? Are you implying MonaVie distributors would resort to violence against someone who disagrees with them? Is this normal MonaVie distributor behavior? Or are you personally threatening physical violence against him?
Do tell.

I was just about to delete these comments, but they got a little productive. Too bad you are taking your ball and going away. Kind of silly you showed up, if you didn’t want to learn. It just goes to show the character of MonaVie proponents.

John, we (well FoodTech who posts here from time to time), with the help of MonaVie distributors, did take the juice to a reputable lab for testing. MonaVie distributors agreed that the process and the test results would be valid. The lab results came back and they were really bad. I believe that Food Tech said that he’d give you a copy of the results if you e-mail him at: Foodtech101@Yahoo.com.

What redirection are you referring to? How do you propose one legally infiltrate the “back room” of government agencies? That’s just not a very smart statement on your part. Then again, you brought nothing smart to the table.

The poster in this thread claiming to be Paul Clayton is an imposter.

I’m guessing it’s a creation of Scam’s doing.

Amusing.

Funny, Fred thinks this is all a conspiracy, but he believes a fruit punch in a shiney bottle will cure most diseases.

So I spent the last two hours reading through this informative and entertaining thread after being sent a You Tube link to the Paul Clayton speech in Anaheim by an Monavie Distributor. It most certainly smelled of BS and I totally agree Monavie is nothing but hyped up overpriced fruit juice. Aside from Monavie however do you (Vogel, Movavie Scam, Foodtech, etc..) believe Wellmune WGP to be a worthwhile product in and of itself? I assume you may be of the opinion that no product endorsed by Paul Clayton is worthwile but I have to ask.

Monavie Taunts the FDA and Teaches Distributors How to Lie About Disease Claims

I am absolutely flabbergasted after reviewing the video of Paul Clayton’s appearance at Monavie’s Indianapolis Regional Meeting (March 12, 2010). Monavie has abandoned their strategy of plausible deniability for illegal health claims and is now openly circumventing and taunting the FDA. A transcript follows and the video can be seen here:
http://174.143.41.58/#/player

95:15 – Clayton: “To tell you the truth I don’t really know why Monavie brought me here because I don’t have much to tell you [crowd laughter; Clayton pauses] There’s a lot I’d like to tell you but the law will not let me do that. I can talk to that (sic) with my colleagues about these things, but I cannot tell you about these things because the FDA says you’re not qualified to hear them [crowd laughter].

“…The law says that I cannot link nutrition and medical claims. Now that’s a law that clearly benefits the pharmaceutical industry [crowd cheering]. And my personal opinion might be that this is a bad law; that this is a law that is injurious to the public; that contributes to the ill health of millions of Americans and people worldwide. [loud cheering] But I must respect that law. [laughter] And I have no wish to say anything at this meeting or at any other which would give the regulators an excuse to attack a fine company like Monavie that I think is in a position to do something for public health. [cheering] So I cant talk about bacteria; I have to talk about ‘invaders’. [laughter] I can’t talk about preventing illness; I have to talk about people ‘feeling better’. You have no idea how frustrating this is to me. I am a scientist, and at the core of scientists (sic), we like to talk about our science; we want to share information, we’d like to be able to tell you the truth [pause] but I can’t do that [laughter]. So let me instead talk about some of the tricks that the pharmaceutical industry and the politicians use to keep you in the dark.”

– Clayton then presents misleading and erroneous statistics about mortality and disease epidemiology in Victorian-era England. Then he says…

109:50 – “Now I’m going to talk about something completely different; that’s illness in general. I’m going to talk about the types of problems that would be caused by ‘invaders’ [Clayton makes air-quotes, crowd laughs]…Sorry, I hate to use air-quotes but it just seems so ridiculous; I feel so absurd talking about ‘invaders’.”

Clayton then presents a series of slides in which “invaders” is substituted in the title for diseases. He repeatedly makes snide sarcastic comments about “invaders” and about the FDA, and he makes it clear that he is using euphemisms to not-so-subtly suggest disease treatment/cures about Wellmune WGP. He continues…

119:30 – “I can’t tell you how important this is. First of all we need to get the law changed because the law is damn stupid. [loud cheering]…I can see a future not far from here where a large part of traditional healthcare will be taken away from the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession, and a large part of it would be taken over by the food industry, and that’s why I’m here. [loud cheering] Monavie will be in pole position in this new movement. [Clayton then joins Henry Marsh and throws Monavie t-shirts into a wildly cheering audience]

121:40 – Henry Marsh then says: “Here’s the question. Do you guys now have a belief that if you drink M-mun it will help you? [loud “yes” in unison from the crowd] Can you educate other people that if they drink M-mun it will help ‘em? [loud “yes” in unison from the crowd] The reason Dr. Clayton’s here is to build your belief; to understand; to have that imprint over and over again that you need to be drinking it to protect you; to give you the health you need to do with your body and mind”

122:19 – Someone on stage [off camera] shouts out “I hate the FDA”. Marsh smiles, laughs, and says “good ones, good ones”

I have news for these a-holes at Monavie. They are going to hate the FDA a lot more after the agency finishes reviewing this transcript and an mpeg copy of the video.

124:45 – Marsh introduces Silver executive distributors Mindy and George Fitzgerald from Indianapolis. Mindy says: “We have a fantastic story. About 16 months ago we were introduced to Monavie. We have children who are very sick; they have arthritis and autism, and our lives have been truly changed since we started drinking Monavie — they are 16 months medication-free. [wild cheers] Their doctors are dismissing them from their care, and they’ve been happy and healthy; happier than they even remember being.”

Marsh: “You know something, isn’t that wonderful. You know it’s like Dr Clayton said. Monavie is doing great things — of course we make no health claims. [exaggerated pause; crowd laughter] But it’s doing wonderful things for people and its very gratifying, and thank you very much for sharing.

Mindy was lying. She had already claimed in this article from Dec 13, 2008 (2 years and 3 months ago) that Monavie cured her kids’ arthritis and got them off their medication.
http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/Hoosiers_show_spirit_in_Jingle_Bell_Run

How then, could she be telling the truth when she said she was only introduced to Monavie 16 months ago? It’s obviously a lie.

127:45 – Marsh says: “Again, what I’m trying to do today is imprint and reinforce how your beliefs drive you”

132:00 – Silver executive distributor Jenny Clarke: “Then when Jim got hit by car, he did great. I mean, he healed up faster than anyone said he was supposed to, so we’re in total belief [pause]. Yeah we’re not supposed to talk about that.” [chuckles] Marsh replies laughing “that’s OK”.

133:20 – Silver executive distributor Phyllis Hamilton (Beaver Creek, OH): “I had some health challenges in my lifetime. I was looking for alternative treatments. Looking for nutritional, um, not treatments; this is a food. But anyway, so I tried the Monavie…within 7 weeks, the diabetes was totally under control. [gasps and applause]…Autism seems to be the theme of the day. We have a high-functioning autistic grandson who we never expected to do very much. He’s 21 years old. He’s been drinking Monavie for 2 years – he is working at Kroger’s! [long pause; loud applause]

135:50 – Phyllis’s husband Pastor Tim Hamilton adds: “A young minister in the church the other day; he had psoriasis real bad and I said if you’ll take this bottle of Monavie, it probably wont help you, but after a couple of bottles, you probably won’t have psoriasis anymore [laughter].” Marsh jokingly says “but remember we do no health claims.” Hamilton continues “Right, right, exactly — and the greatest coincidence in the world — after 2 bottles he started clearing up [applause]. So it is a blessing.”

206:55 – With Marsh’s prodding, a Ruby executive gives a testimonial about her sister’s miraculous cure, claiming that Monavie got her out of her wheelchair. Marsh stands by nodding

215:00 – Marsh makes a reference to Monavie’s worn-out cliché about “herding cats” [after figuratively unleashing thousands of them through his ignorant, lying, hillbilly minions]

The message punctuating all of these illegal claims and blatant taunting of the FDA was:

“Belief…imprinting…faith…believe…imprint…believe… never quit…believe…never quit”

Well, my wife this past week make good friends with people at the Office of Dietary Supplements of the NIH and they are very familiar with MonaVie and the claims that are being made. She said they’d love to talk to me and help out this website anyway they can. I had a few other things going (as you may know this is not my only gig), but I’m going to start to make this a priority again.

I went to the pharmacy convention (APhA) in D.C. last week. I talked with quite a few, especially about the vitamin K thing. They all seemed pretty taken aback. My best connection though seemed to be one my wife made when I wasn’t around with the National Institute of Health’s Office of Dietary Supplements.

I must admit that I haven’t been as proactive about getting regulatory action as I could be and have been more about educating people who might be looking for information about MonaVie.

Vogel – Thanks for sitting through that video and transcribing the events. I couldn’t bring myself to watch the entire video (I fast-forwarded past the “medical claims” section). Clayton’s tone has changed quite a bit from his last appearance on the MonaVie stage, which seemed more like an academic talk. Now, he’s joking with the crowd and throwing out t-shirts!

I totally agree with you about the FDA needing more bite in this area. In the Pharma world, the FDA does a pretty good job of policing improper product claims, mainly because it is SOP for companies to rat each other out when they find examples of their competitors using prohibited and unsupported product claims. They simply do not sit back and allow their competitors to get a free ride and an unfair advantage in the marketplace. The regulations for Pharma companies are also a lot stricter now than they used to be, and the FDA has done a good job of making it disadvantageous for Pharma companies to push the envelope too much.

In the nutraceutical realm, however, it’s a different ballgame – there are just too many bogus products and misleading claims for the FDA to monitor and regulate them all. It’s mainly a budget issue. Also, many of these shady fly-by-night MLM companies, unlike big-name Pharma companies (that are in it for the long haul), have little to lose.

I strongly agree that the penalties should be much stricter. If the FDA can’t increase the odds of detecting all violators, they should at least increase the penalties for those that do get discovered – e.g., the threat of massive fines, product withdrawals, company closures, and holding executives personally responsible would minimize the upside of running one of these nutri-scams.

We should consider lobbying state and federal legislators who might be sympathetic to tightening FDA enforcement efforts against illegally-marketed nutritional products. They need to be made aware of the damage that these supplement/juice scammers are doing and the potential for serious injury, both physical and financial, among unsuspecting and vulnerable consumers.

And just to preempt the Monavidiots who will inevitably get their knickers in a knot over my comment and come back here accusing me of being a big Pharma apologist, I think that the FDA should be strict in enforcing ALL forms of misleading advertising, whether it’s from Pharma companies or nutri-scammers. The difference between these two industries though, as it stands now, is that the advertising regulations are already quite strict for Pharma companies, whereas they are incredibly lax and overly tolerant for supplement and nutraceutical companies. We have Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Congressman Dan Burton (R-Indiana) to thank for that – they, representing the interests of their campaign donors, spearheaded the push to enact the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, which is why everything is so screwed up now. DSHEA should be repealed.

And then there are also the lobbyists and sympathetic members of congress, representing companies like Amway (big financial supporters of various Republican candidates including Bush), who have tried to neuter enforcement efforts in the interest of their corporate sponsors. Bush’s 2001 appointment of Amway lawyer Timothy Muris to head the FTC is a good example – he nearly eviscerated the agency and made sure that Amway would get a free ride. The pendulum is swinging back to some semblance of normality now though, but it needs to swing a lot farther still.

Good points, Vogel. If it is indeed a death rattle, we should expect to see a big decrease in the over all quality of the product. The more expensive ingredients will drop off, or disappear altogether. The Chromadex tests that showed the ratio of total polyphenols to anthocyanins reflect this. I have little doubt that the product is mostly cheap white grape juice.

I’d be surprised if there were any acai at all in the product.

Let’s see if you can get Oprah to agree first. It’s not like you just walk on that set any time you want. Also, why do we need it on television. What’s going to be different there? Here we can site sources and back up claims with evidence. On the television show would we stop the show for a timeout every time that someone in the debate wants to verify the claim?

ok then. just go for another live discussion programme. so many people out there want to know the truth. u must show them out there that u’re right. u must hav Earnestness.

Kane, are you able to book us on a live discussion programme?

Please realize that this website is more effective than a live discussion programme in many ways.

1) People can support their claims with actual facts. In this thread for instance he was able to look into Dr. Clayton’s past and see that he didn’t go to Oxford University as he implied and that he even lied about his degree in his CV. It’s hard to do that on live television. No one wants to watch Vogel stop and research the claims for a half hour. It’s not exciting television.

As you say, many people out there want to know the truth. If that’s the case, why does MonaVie choose not to comment here? They have the truth and they know this website exists. I’m on good terms with Shante MonaVie’s Chief Blogger.

When it comes down to it, 99% of the people watching the live discussion programme wouldn’t even know or care what MonaVie is. So it wouldn’t be helpful to the people who want to know the truth. The people who want to know the truth go on the Internet and search Google. Guess what information the find? This website (and of course others), not live discussion programmes.

Also as noted Dr. Clayton is still invited to speak here, but it seems he chooses not to. I think you need to focus on getting Clayton on a live programme before Vogel. And again, you need to get a live programme.

monavie scam = Thanks for ur answer. I appreciate. I dont hav to get u a live programme but u. If u want to reveal the truth n thats my “others suggestion( live programme).
If u dont u want n its ok for me.. its just my suggestion.

vogel = hmm.. i dont like the way u try to comunicate with me.

im not offering u to get “oprah live programe”
im just give u a suggestion to go for a face to face discussion in a tv live show discussion (like oprah winfrey show).
i remind u again. “its only a suggestion”
so many ways to revealed the truth..huh.. just reveal it… dont care what ways do u use, just reveal it. dont give an excuse…

about discussion programme, it just my suggestion.
dont do it if u dont wannit.

i dont know what do u want from me. i only give u a suggestion but u drag me into ur “clayton’s problem”.
whats ur problem actually?

I have read some, not all of the posts up through March 30. They are interesting indeed. I don’t intend to jump into a huge debate here on the credibility of Dr. Paul Clayton, but would like to point out to those who so steadfastly are seeking to undermine him that I have actually met him in person, unlike you, and had time to dialogue face to face with him about Wellmune. I do not consider myself to be the idiot Vogel claims that all folks who attend the conventions to be. I am a critical care nurse of 20+ years duration, and my husband, who is in the Mona Vie venture with me, is a Dentist. Both of us are well educated, and know how to ask questions, read and apply scientific papers, and understand scientific discussions. I would like to make two simple observations:
1- Vogel seems to be doing himself a dire disservice by all the name calling and off color language he uses. He sounds like a low-life idiot (rather the kind he accuses the conventions of being full of) himself and by doing so discredits himself greatly. A wonderful example of complete lack of self control.
2-: I would like to support the point Dr. Clayton is making with regarding the decreased efficacy of antibiotics. It is absolutely true. I have seen a very generous rise in antibiotic resistant strains of disease in our population over the past 20 years. He, and others in our scientific/medical community are rightly concerned about the developing trend. We are having to be more and more vigilant about infection control and very aggressive with antibiotics to control bacterial activity these days. The aggressive use of antibiotics does come with many side effects to the body system wide, much more than one would expect and actually experience with adding fruit juice like Mona Vie to a well balanced and nutritious diet. I don’t recommend that anyone entertain the notion that they are replacing fruit consumption by drinking it. I do support the notion of augmenting an already excellent diet with it however. Cornell University released a study on the syngergistic antioxidant effect of multiple fruits, and that is what one will get in adding Mona Vie juice to the other fruits and vegetables in the diet. These aren’t exclusively contradictory notions, rather they are complimentary.

Last, one request. If anyone, Vogel included, would like to respond to this post, you are welcome to do so. However, I respectfully ask that it be done without cursing and name calling. Inflammatory language serves no purpose here.

Thank-You.
MJ

Marissa,

1) It’s worth noting that Vogel has been the recipient of 10 times the amount of name calling he’s dished out. That said, if I was Vogel and I actually know what I’m talking about, I’d probably get annoyed at all the new distributors that come here and say, “MonaVie’s gotz 13 servings of fruitz in it.” The first few times it’s okay to deal with, but it grows tiresome. It also grows tiresome when time after time we see that anyone involved with MonaVie is some kind of charlatan. You avoid the topic of Paul Clayton’s credibility and instead talk about Vogel’s tone. It’s bewildering why you’d be accepting of Clayton’s smooth-talking lies vs. Vogel’s hard-hitting truths.

2) I think it was duly noted that antibiotics are becoming less effective. You can see it in the fifth bullet point of this article. However, Paul Clayton says that as of 2010 (i.e. by the end of the year) antibiotics will be “useless.” I realize he’s quoting another doctor, but by doing that he’s agreeing with that doctor. It is absolutely false and unfounded.

Furthermore, the whole point about the effectiveness of antibiotics at a MonaVie meeting is rather pointless. It’s like saying that we are running out of fossil fuels and need to come up with alternatives. MonaVie is no more an alternative to our problem of antibiotics than it is an alternative to our problem with fossil fuels. The only reason MonaVie invited Paul Clayton to talk about antibiotics is so that distributors will make the implicit (and erroneous) connection that MonaVie and medicine are related. This allows MonaVie to continue to sell juice at a 10-20x premium over juices that have been tested to be better.

There’s little evidence that augmenting an excellent diet with MonaVie (or other fruit juices) provides any additional benefit. We know there’s a limit to how many vitamins and minerals the body can absorb. It is likely that those on an excellent diet already have maximized their ORAC as Dr. Bowden says. Dr. Bowden also makes the excellent point that four ounces of juice isn’t going to help those on bad diet much. So whether you are on an excellent or bad diet, MonaVie isn’t the answerl. Also, many nutritionists will also point out that MonaVie provides very little in terms of vitamins or minerals and is essentially extra sugar without the benefit of fiber.

Please cite the study from Cornell University on the synergistic antioxidant effect of multiple fruits. If the study is true, then it just supports the point that juices like V8 Fusion line of juices is a fair comparison to MonaVie at about 1/15th the price.

I have not heard one person tout monavie as a medicine..fruit is a food..monavie is a food..monavie is just really good nutrition for you..get your bloodwork done then drink it for 90 days and then get retested and see how it looks..your body will thank you for it..or just continue with your farmer market fruits every other day..life’s about choices..you can choose to spread nastiness or to spread kindness..if you choose to spread nastiness please cover your mouth when you do so as not to spread that “germ”..if you choose to spread kindness please don’t cover your mouth so we may see your beautiful smile..

Congratulations on this website.

Unfortunately you are up against brain washing where scientifically supported statements or common sense have no place.

I beg you to please invest your time in placing formal complaints to the FDA. I think you have a very strong case.

As for Paul Clayton you have done a fantastic job in uncovering his background. Simply watching his latest presentation makes it clear he is not an independent scientist. He too should be reported to the FDA and held accountable for his statements.

What I do find strange is that during his speech he is very negative towards the pharmaceutical industry, when in fact he is on the advisory board of a pharma company, Biotherapharma.

Well, perhaps Paul Clayton was paid more, but isn’t saying. I’m not implying it actually happened, I’m just saying it’s possible he could tell us one number and actually receive a check for a different number. We have no way to verify.

I think he knew what he was doing. At the very least the way he made it seem like he was a medical doctor and not pharmacist (again my wife is a pharmacist, so I love them, but they aren’t medical doctors) and the way he implied he got his degree from Oxford University. He’s being shady as well.

No, he does not say he is a medical doctor in the video ( let´s be fair) and he mentions Oxford in the beginning of the presentation where he asks what he is doing on stage in the middle of this special audience.
PC is fellow lecturer at Oxford Brooks University, and the title professor is mentioned only by one of MV´s guys presenting him for his audience, not by PC himself.

So far so good. It is enough wrong here, we do not have to add more to it….

What if I am right? The more I think of it, the more certain I become….makes sense. Explains a lot.

( Look to my former comment, here above please)

Well he said so in the comments above and his CV states that he didn’t get a degree from Oxford University. What other information would you need?

I’m not saying he does say he’s a medical doctor… he just introduces himself as doctor and doesn’t actually clarify he’s a pharmacist. It’s like my lawyer friend claiming he’s a doctor when he’s actually a doctor of jurisprudence. Is MonaVie going to trot out someone who has a doctorate in Computer Science next? Where is the line? It’s misinformation and they should be ashamed for it.

PC says something to the effect of “earning his degree in the University in Oxford” to the crowd (I think Vogel quoted it above, but you can watch the video and hear it exactly). The way he words it makes one believe he’s talking about Oxford University. It’s clearly clever wordsmithing to mislead.

There’s no way to compare a medical doctor from Oxford University to pharmacist who is a lecturer at Oxford Brooks University.

It is critical for the countability of your blog you keep information reliable.

Here is the opening of Paul Clayton´s speach in Anaheim, which is where the name Oxford is mentioned:

Well hi there! I am a shy and kind of retireing kind of clinical scientist.
My natural habita is the university and dreaming spires of Oxford, so I ask myself: What the heck am I doing here in Anaheim?

…Then he goes on with his presentation. Where have you guys got the assuming he claims to have a degree from Oxford, and by the way, what difference is that to a degree from Edinburgh?( you must live far away from the old universitycities in the UK!

This is so sad. When I can discover weaknesses this easily in your arguments in here, I come to distrust a blog I want to promote.

Get this right again, Scam, and hopefully you only got this wrong!

Cooper,

Check out his CV. The information is here in the comments. Please don’t ask things that have been addressed before.

I have twice explained Clayton’s deception with respect to the University of Oxford quite clearly. Apparently, it needs repeating:

‘In the Monavie video, Clayton claims “my natural habitat is the university and the gleaming spires of Oxford”. In fact, Clayton’s CV describes him as a “visiting professor” from “Oxford Brookes University”, a lowly institution that has absolutely nothing to do with the gleaming spires of the illustrious “University of Oxford”.’

‘Clayton made this claim about the “gleaming spires” in his Monavie presentation, and everyone would naturally assume that he was referring to the illustrious “University of Oxford”, since this is precisely what “dreaming spires” referred to when the term was coined by 19th C poet Matthew Arnold. In fact, Clayton’s affiliation (allegedly as a “visiting professor”) is with lowly Oxford Brookes University, a third-rate institution that has nothing to do with University of Oxford, other than being in the same city. Who it is that he is “visiting” during his “visiting professorship” is never mentioned. If he can see the dreaming spires at all, it’s from more than a mile away out a window at Brookes University on Headington Road.’

This was but one in a long list of examples of resume padding/deception.

If anyone anywhere thinks that Clayton is a “well-respected scientist” (as Spokesman loudly proclaimed), they (a) are wrong; (b) don’t understand (or don’t really care) what constitutes a “scientist”; and (c) give respect where none is due. Clayton has never published any clinical research in his entire career, which spans about 30 years (as I recall) since he allegedly obtained his alleged PhD. And he has only recently published a couple of redundant, poorly-executed low-impact articles on Victorian era diets. In order to be considered a scientist, one must publish real scientific research throughout their career. Clayton appears to be nothing more than a journeyman fakir for scammy companies like Monavie.

BTW, LM, Clayton’s alleged degree (and I’m still not convinced that he has one, since he declined to confirm the details I asked for) is not in pharmacy but rather in pharmacology — big difference. A pharmacology PhD would prepare one to be a career researcher, either in the academic or industrial sector. Uusually, it’s not a small undertaking to get a PhD in pharmacology — about 5-7 years of intensive research, course work, and thesis preparation/defense. Research from the thesis is generally submitted for publication in medical research journals, so that by the time one graduates, they will have several research articles (or imminent publications) to their name. A PhD pharmacologist is not an MD; however, their training exposes them to various aspects of medicine. On the other hand, unless an MD has also gained a PhD, they generally know little about how to conduct scientific research.

Vogel is a giant space octopus from the planet Kelmar. Is that helpful?

Spokesman,

I think Vogel did a tremendous job pointing out that Clayton’s affiliation was with Oxford Brookes – a fact that Clayton admitted here. It is worth discussing why he is portraying himself as a medical doctor from one of the most prestigious universities in the world to something less from a much less prestigious school. The crowd has taken his word as gospel, especially the part about antibiotics being “useless” in 2010. In about an hour, I can round up 5 or 6 people with as good or better professional qualifications who can refute just about everything he says. They aren’t getting their fair share time in front of the MonaVie crowd.

One of the more important things to note here is that MonaVie is pushing their agenda that MonaVie is intended for medicinal purposes. If it was just fruit juice, it would behave like other juice companies… when was last time you saw any juice on your grocer’s shelf push their juice as medicine?

Garlic is been touted as a medicine for centuries upon centuries and so have many other fruits and vegetables. Problem is you can’t say it can cure anything want to know why? Because the drug companies can’t patent those veggies and fruits because they were created by god not man. It’s all about $$$$$$$ that is why you don’t see something like garlic being sold like a drug on TV when Garlic is probably one of the most powerful things on earth.

I agree with you Candace and was going to suggest the same — this fool is Paul Clayton. I rather suspected that he would reappear under a different user name and posting from a different location, after we eviscerated him, his fraudulent credntials, and his BS claims at the Indy Monavie meeting. Funny how he still won’t provide any details about his alleged PhD or try to rebut the fact that he isn’t a “scientist” by any normal definition of the term.

When he claimed that his natural environment was the “gleaming spires of Oxford”, he was clearly misleading people into thinking that he was affiliated with the illustrious University of Oxford. What a lying hack!

Truth be told, I suspect that even Clayton’s claim to be a “visiting professor” from Oxford Brookes is less than truthful. If had legitimate academic affiliation one would supect that he would have an email address from an academic institution, and yet on his 2009 publication, he uses a G-mail address. That is highly atypical and a red flag. Elsewhere, he claims that he is a visting professor from Debrecen University in Hungary.

I think it’s all BS — even the PhD degree he claims to have. His back stories keep changing and they don’t line up.

Look Spokesman, I don’t know whether you are Paul Clayton, as it would appear, or just someone who has his tongue wedged up Clayton’s ass, but I do know that you haven’t put one fact on the table yet — not ONE. You better start soon or I’m afraid your posts might start getting blocked, as they should be. We don’t need yet another disingenuous a-hole on this site derailing the discussion with nonsense.

I’ll defer to your judgement LM. That just leaves the wedged-tongue explanation.

Interesting question. This distributor’s website says:

Where are Mona•vie™ products manufactured? To ensure the highest level of quality, Mona•vie™ blends and produces Mona•vie™ products at its manufacturing facility in Salt Lake City, Utah (not far from the corporate office).
http://purplejuice.sjensen.org/faq.htm

But the official corporate site says just the following: ” MonaVie products are manufactured in the United States of America.”
http://www.monavie.com/Web/US/en/faq.dhtml

Oh yeah, $17.00 per bottle, same as Monavie?

Perhaps “Dr” Clayton…oh, let’s stop the charade already…MISTER Clayton can explain why his name does not appear in the faculty directory at Debrecen University in Hungary, despite the fact that in a seminar he gave in September 2009 he was listed as a “visiting professor” from the University of Debrecen. Another example of fraud it would appear.
https://www.unideb.hu/portal/en/phone_book
http://www.cnelm.co.uk/courses/Attachments/Cancer%20Care%20Seminar%20Series.pdf

It seems that the editor appears to suffer from autonomy shared by persons the likes of Anne Coulter and such. A proud day for you!! Though I agree there is a right to say what ever you like I am capapble of spouting the same trash as you. I have lived with shock and awe people like yourself for many years… Howard Stern comes to mind.

[Editor's note: There isn't any shock and awe here and I'm the furthest thing from Ann Coulter or Howard Stern.]

Because of your “Editors Note:” interjection, does this mean you’re correct.

[Editor's note: I never said it did. I have the ability to reply to comments in line as owner of this blog, so I use that to make sure people know which parts I'm responding to and so I can't point out exactly the inaccuracies of statements without confusion.]

For all I know you may be some out of work political speech writer who figures that debate means what you put on a fish hook. (Just expressing Chris’s Note!!) Answer me this Mr. Editor… Who in the Macy’s retail chain, outside of the CEO’s or shareholders: ie: Managers, checkout clerks etc… will earn $1 million or more this year? Let us try The Safeway group or Loblaws! Who outside of the CEO’s or shareholders: ie: Managers, checkout clerks etc… will earn $1 million? Chances are (Logically)none!! What would that percentage be? Now how many in Amway, Mona vie or any other MLM will earn that dollar value. Any one of them may! Is Amway or Mona Vie illegal? Last time that I checked, they are considered companies of good faith and innovation. They are guilty of one thing only and that is of being different. Your logic is flawed Mr. Editor. You have the freedom to spout your tripe but not the ability to prove it. Show me legal precedent in either the USA or Canada that makes them illegal? You just do not like MLM’s. Devils advocate or not, I don’t buy your opinion. You are wrong and biased.

[Editor's note: Chris your analogy also applies to those who play the lottery. Any one of those who play can earn $1 million. So should everyone just quit their jobs and play the lottery? No, because the odds of getting that million are very, very poor, just like the odds in MonaVie.

I didn't say that MLMs are illegal. I admit that I don't like MLMs, but the biggest problem I have with MonaVie is the product. Its small (if any) benefit doesn't support its extraordinarily large price. Many, many distributors have told me straight out that they'd sell pet rocks because they think the compensation plan will make them rich. That's essentially a pyramid scheme.]

Wow, another bellowing d-bag Monavie whore…wonders never cease.

The ususal moronic tactics…trying to tie LM to Anne Coulter…that’s a first…such an idiot!

Who at Monavie makes more than their CEO? Cat got your tongue d-bag?

“Companies of good faith and innovation”, as you put it, don’t get D-minus ratings from the Better Business Bureau or citation letters from the FDA, or horrible write-ups in Newsweek, Forbes, and Men’s Journal.

We’ve reviewed extensively the criteria used by the FTC for judging whether an MLM is in fact a product-based pyramid scheme. Monavie easily fulfills those criteria. The company’s violation of FDA regulations is blatant and chronic. You simply can’t deny it.

Monavie is not “guilty of being different”; in fact, it’s Monavie’s “sameness” that is truly remarkable. Monavie is nothing more than Royal Tongan Limu Version 2.0. It is a duplicate of other scandalous juice scams like Tahitian Noni and Xango. It is a ripoff of Sambazon. A less original product or company than Monavie would be hard to imagine.

They only get “shut down” if there are many complaints that they are doing something illegal. Then a case must be made, which takes time, sometimes years. That’s not to say that it may wind itself down.
Look at the growth rate of Monavie, it doesn’t seem sustainable. Nothing can keep going up at such an accelerated rate. I am not a Math guy, but I know nothing can keep going up at such a rate forever. I also don’t see how a market of people who are paying $160.00 per month for juice will do so for 10 years. I have not bought anything the same for 10 years, things change, products change, finances change. It’s a math thing. A saturation thing.
None of the above happens with a well run company and a solid product. Look at Pampered Chef, very stable MLM, just got bought by Warren Buffet, probably great company w/great pay plan.
All companies are different.
But, I don’t see how Monavie is sustainable.

I can’t answer that as I am not that astute of a business man. Amway has been around for over 40 years and I think if something was illegal it would have been addressed by now but they are still in business. I do drink Mona Vie and it works for me. I have used Amway products for years and have not found that my peter has fallen off. I suppose if everyone that had $50 dollars to buy an Ipod were to purchase them, Apple would be very happy for a short time. Is there a further need after this? The balloon should have broken by now?
The D-bag reference was for Vogel who seemed quite capable of firing that name in my direction.
This seems to support the fact that if, in a free democracy, we have an opinion that differs from somebody elses, people who disagree are allowed to trash, rip apart and malign anothers opinion. Sort of reminds me of a backyard bully??? They have the right to their beliefs but if you disagree then they’ll beat you into submission.
I was a soldier and fought for these rights and am saddened when somebody’s right to their own opinion is so callously trod upon. Many people who try out these MLM’s are excercising there right to freedom of choice. How they spend their money is their concern. If you do not agree… say so but do not resort to “another bellowing d-bag Monavie whore” name calling. If they get taken for a ride then so be it. I am entitled to my opinion but see that most of the people on this blog are on the against side of MLM’s. To each their own. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to state my take! As I see it anyways.

That growth rate shows that company didn’t earn much early on. It looks a lot like the Internet stock bubble in 2001 – we know how that ended.

This week I took an advanced HACCP re-certification course. A member of our scientific validation group happened to be a FDA inspector. So, I asked him directly what his agency was doing about fringe companies like MonaVie. He said that do to budget cuts, the majority of the food resources are in food safety, not labeling fraud. He agreed that MonaVie is in clear violation of the CFR’s.

Apparently, MonaVie along with several other juices and supplements are being investigated as a group. At least they are aware of the issue.

There is strong talk of merging the USDA’s 9,000 inspectors with the 900 FDA inspectors into one agency. This would give both agencies a lot more bite. Obviously, we shouldn’t hold our breath.

@Chris…great post…LOL

Chris, you may want to examine your MonaVie. I believe it has fermented.

This is a MonaVie site. Please verify this by checking the heading.

If you have issues with other supplements, I suggest that you start your own blog.

There are just way too many weasel products for me to comment on each and every one. However, if there is a particular product that really aggravates you, I’ll be glad to leave my opinion. It won’t be here, though.

Been following this thread for a while. Pretty obvious that Vogel has a hang-up about something and is the type of person who is going to pick holes in anything just to kick up a stink and make himself feel knowledgable and gain kudos from the Internet community – I would second tat request to know Vogel’s background and why his emotionally loaded attacks. Let’s get back to facts and figures. Keep up the good work those others who care about actual results and quality of life.

[Editor's Note: We have previously concluded that Vogel is a giant space octopus from the planet Kelmar. If you want to get back to facts and figures, it is best to provide some yourself rather than try to shift the focus the conversation another commenter. Space Octopi and Kelmar are not related to MonaVie.]

Absolutely oustanding reading and work by Juice Scam and Vogel to uncover yet another fraudster joining the ranks of the Monavie posse.

No member of any reputable medical fraternity or the like would stand up and promote Monavie – any why would they considering Monavie is proven to be poor nutrition.

The Indianapolis Regional Meeting is distrubing to say the least – I used to think that people were defending their distorted belief in this company because of greed but I’m starting to think it’ss deeper than that for some….bordering on cult like?

It’s not unlike the behaviour as described by some former Amway reps – people alienating themselves, mass hysteria, rejecting what were previously reliable sources and accepting only what is being told by the comopany and its reps.

I’d rather be on planet Kelmar than have my brain turned to mush by Dallin Larceny and his cronies.

Paul Clayton is Still a Lying Idiot

These are a few of Clayton’s latest stunningly dimwitted quotes from the 2010 “Monavie Vision” distributor meeting:

“The reason why I’m here is that the research that I’ve been doing for the last 5 years or so has been enough to convince me that with the Monavie drinks — the Monavie products — and with you, the Monavie team, you have the capacity, you have the potential to have more of an impact on our appalling public health than the medical profession, the pharmaceutical industry, and governments put together.”

“This is just a taste of things to come. You now have access to a set of prophylactic and maybe eventually therapeutic tools which are actually more potent and a darn sight safer — more effective — than anything that the drug companies can provide.”

“Ladies and gentleman we need to change our healthcare system. It’s cruel; it’s expensive; it doesn’t work; and we kill far too many people with the adverse effects of the medications we use. That’s unnecessary. We can do better. And now, for the first time, you actually have the tools — and for the first time, we have the people — to bring this revolution forward. You’re in the front line folks – it’s up to you.”

Clayton is an irresponsible self-serving a-hole who is flaunting FDA regulations and jeopardizing public health to promote this pathetic horse-piss scam juice. My disdain for this arrogant charlatan knows no limits.

And now “for the first time, you have the tools…” I’m glad that MonaVie invented fruit… oh wait they didn’t.

They just took existing fruit and stripped it of vitamins, minerals and fiber, and then marketed up the result by 10,000% or so.

I’m really not surprised by any of the things that Dr. Clayton says anymore.

No such study on Monavie exists. There was an anthrax study done in 2003 on beta-glucans injected in mice (not consumed orally in humans). It does not appear that the product was Wellmune, the beta-glucan ingredient in Monavie M-mun.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12827062

The researchers, who were affiliated with a company called Biophage Pharma, seem to have abandoned this line of research (presumably due to lack of positive results at some stage), because nothing has been published on anthrax and beta glucans since 2003.

Mentioning this study in a Monavie product pitch is misleading and illegal, and it violates Monavie’s policies (which, pathetically, are never enforced).