Dr. Alex Schauss, ORAC, and Freeze-Dried Acai

17
Comments

I would like to thank Scott for passing on Dr. Alex Schauss’ presentation of freeze-dried acai:

I was initially quite excited that freeze-dried acai could scientifically be proven to have far greater ORAC scores than other berries. Perhaps it is the scientific break-through that he claims it to be. To review, here’s what Alex Schauss says:

I would have needed another three screens to the right of my computer to let that arrow accurately define it’s difference compared to freeze-dried samples of other foods that we looked at – that the USDA looked at. It was off the chart.(Timestamp of 2:23)

The bold emphasis there is mine. There’s also this:

again you can see the high bar that is acai and all of these others which are moisture equivalent and they are also freeze-dried samples. So you can there is a vast difference between the two. So Gram to gram… (Timestamp of 3:43)

I had always contended that Schauss was measuring two different things: one freeze-dried acai… the other typical berries. This would be a troubling comparison because most everyone knows that water makes up 90% of fruit. If you take the water out of acai you can get 10x more ORAC score if you are measuring “gram to gram” of something that still has 90% of it’s water. As such, I always thought that we needed a fair test, one that is moisture equivalent as he states. And now that we have it, let’s celebrate the freeze-dried acai berry, right?

Unfortunately, we can’t break out the party hats yet. My friend Vogel as usual digs up the hard evidence to discount that information, noting the following:

This victory for minor victory for freeze-dried acai is short-lived… the paper goes on to say:

Contradictorily and surprisingly, the contents of anthocyanins, proanthocyanadins, and other polyphenol compounds in this freeze-dried product were found to be much lower than those found in blueberry or other berries with elevated H-ORAC values. To make things even more confusing, the total phenolics in acai was found to be only 13.9 mg/g GAE

The interesting thing to me is that this is exactly what Men’s Journal said about MonaVie, “[MonaVie Active] tested extremely low in anthocyanins and phenolics… even apple juice (which also tested poorly) has more phenolics…”

Now is a good time to mention that freeze-dried acai and MonaVie are not one in the same. Most distributors will talk about freeze-dried acai, and then hand you a bottle of MonaVie as if it’s the same thing. We know the ORAC scores on MonaVie from other AIMBR tests and that’s not any prettier.

Originally posted 2009-09-17 13:54:26. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

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

This post involves:

, ,

... and focuses on:

Dr. Schauss

Posted by MonaVie Scam on November 25, 2017 in Dr. Schauss. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

17 Responses to “Dr. Alex Schauss, ORAC, and Freeze-Dried Acai”
  1. Fred Says:

    “The interesting thing to me is that this is exactly what Men’s Journal said about MonaVie, “[MonaVie Active] tested extremely low in anthocyanins and phenolics… even apple juice (which also tested poorly) has more phenolics…””

    Which peer-reviewed scientific journal is Men’s Journal’s research published?

    Here’s where you can find Dr. Schauss’s research–>

    http://www.aibmr.com/resources/articles-and-reports.php

  2. MonaVie Scam Says:

    Don’t you see the point of the quote? Both Men’s Journal and MonaVie’s Dr. Schauss come to the same conclusions.

    The Men’s Journal article was not “research” it was tested by an independent lab. Dr. Schauss is not independent, he is on MonaVie’s board of advisors. Even his tests show that MonaVie isn’t very nutritious.

  3. Food Tech in CA Says:

    Fred, it may benefit you to actually read what the peer-reviewed study found about MonaVie.
    The product had a total ORAC of 22.81 umoles/ml. It had a total phenolics (polyphenols) of 1.48 mg/ml.

    The AIBMR study (Dr. Schauss) was published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry – 2008, Vol 56, pgs. 8326-8333

    Interestingly, another study was published in that exact same printing. That study was conducted by the Center for Human Nutrition, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA.
    This can be found on pages 1415-1422.

    The UCLA study (Comparison of Antioxidant Potency of Commonly Consumed Polyphenol-Rich Beverages in the United States) went much further than the limited AIBMR study. The authors not only compared polyphenols (phenolics), but also ORAC, DPPH, FRAP, and TEAC of twelve different beverages.

    Using the data on MonaVie provided by AIBMR, we can rank the antioxidant potency somewhere between acai juice and black cherry juice.
    Pomegranate juice, Red wine, Concord grape juice, blueberry juice, and black cherry juice all rank well ahead of MonaVie.

    That’s just the juices. If you compare the ORAC of various fruits and vegetables found in the USDA ORAC Table, MonaVie is a non-player when it comes to antioxidant potency.

    I’m surprised that you are still trying to use this as a selling point. I believe most of the distributors have given up on using ORAC values.

  4. Bryant Wells Says:

    Was Dr. Schauss with Monavie when he did his research on which he won the Linus Pauling award AFTER having his research critiqued by everyone in the world? I’m just asking. I don’t know. Anyone?

  5. MonaVie Scam Says:

    It is irrelevant whether Dr. Schauss was with MonaVie at that time. At least explain why you think it is relevant.

    It seems instead your point is sneaky way of saying: “Dr. Schauss won the Linus Pauling award and his research has been critiqued by everyone in the world.”

    Bringing up the Linus Pauling award is a fair question. I will quote Vogel from here:

    “Perhaps you should ask the following questions first: whose interests does ACAM represent, what is the Linus Pauling award, and why did Schauss win it? It looks to me like ACAM is a partisan group that represents the interests of nutraceutical companies. The award doesn’t seem to be a big deal and it certainly has nothing to do with Linus Pauling, other than merely borrowing his name. Awards like this are a dime a dozen “resume padding” and in themselves do not attest to the veracity of any particular statements made by their recipients; that’s just commonsense.

    Vogel does look to be on target with ACAM. If you want to look towards someone with a real resume on integrative medicine, I’d turn to Dr. Andrew Weil and what he says about MonaVie. This is especially true because Freeze-Dried Acai ORAC Scores are Misleading and MonaVie is less than 2% Freeze-Dried Acai.

    When you say Alex Schauss’ research was critiqued by everyone in the world, what do you mean? Who specifically critiqued it and where are these critiques? Can you present some examples or is this just an empty statement?

    Now if you could kindly address the topics in the actual article. Specifically explain the logic behind out the water to reduce the weight and thus boost the ORAC per gram number to make it seem like a breakthrough, which it isn’t.

  6. bryant wells Says:

    Well I think its relevant because a comment i read said Dr. Schauss was with monavie and he wasn’t at the time. As far as taking water out b;ah blah blah.. whatever.. Acai is EVERYWHERE and EVEYONE is taking it.. Monavie is not a scam because they dont give entrepreneur of the year awards, logo on Ernst & Young building etc is it is a “scam” what makes it a “scam” the product IS a product. It’s fruit man..lo.. do you go to the grocery store and say “this banana didn’t work!! You guys are a scam!!”..lol.. ridiculous.. I know several people making good money that were NOT making good money with it 2 years ago.. people were telling them it was a scam too… now THOSE people are making good money.. Monavie works for ME.. I am not a distributor… i would like to use it regularly but it is pricy.. I have a friend wanting me to do it and I buy it from him when he buys a “bulk” order..he gives it to me really cheap.. but I can not afoord to “do it”.. the business… I am probably going to do [another product] which also has Acai and is half the price as Monavie. I have a another friend trying me to get to do that and probably will. As far as why i said everyone crtiqued his research is because that is what they do in that firned.. medical field and such.. they try to tear apart others research and work to find error…

  7. CGC Says:

    Bryant Wells,
    So obviously your initial intent WAS to say that Dr. Schauss got that Linus Pauling award.

    Now regarding your second post, the truth is that acai is not being used by very many people. Maybe from the point of view of an MLM wannabe it appears that way.

    Yes indeed many scammers have been given awards and honors before they were fully exposed as the crooks we now know them to be. If you had done a little research on this site you could have learned that.

    How can you say It’s fruit man..lo.. do you go to the grocery store and say “this banana didn’t work!! You guys are a scam!!”, in one line then have the lack of any sense of self-irony to come out and say “Monavie works for ME” in another.

    Well, you’rr right, it’s fruit, processed into juice. It would rationally be priced at about $3 to $6 per bottle, but when you throw in some lies about its healthfulness and more lies about the business, then you can scam people into paying $35. What do you consider getting it “really cheap”?

    You seem determined to be ripped off with one MLM or another, so good luck with XB Fit (which seems like an overpriced juice/multi-vitamin).

  8. MonaVie Scam Says:

    bryant wells said,

    “Well I think its relevant because a comment i read said Dr. Schauss was with monavie and he wasn’t at the time.”

    Well please quote the relevant comment. Don’t just state what you think…

    bryant wells said,

    “As far as taking water out b;ah blah blah.. whatever.. “

    Ummm you can’t “blah, blah, blah” the most significant scientific point. It is like making an argument against the world being round by saying, “blah, blah, blah… whatever…”

    bryant wells said,

    “Acai is EVERYWHERE and EVEYONE is taking it.. “

    Actually no one “takes” a fruit. No one “takes” cherries, apples, or any juice. So no one, nowhere takes it… good job.

    bryant wells said,

    “Monavie is not a scam because they dont give entrepreneur of the year awards, logo on Ernst & Young building etc is it is a “scam” what makes it a “scam” the product IS a product”

    Read Dallin Larsen, Ernst and Young, and Entrepreneur Of The Year and focus on the comments… they do give Entrepreneur Of The Year awards to scams…

    bryant wells said,

    “It’s fruit man..lo.. do you go to the grocery store and say ‘this banana didn’t work!! You guys are a scam!!’..lol.. ridiculous.. “

    No one expects a banana to do anything… much like MonaVie. You seem to saying that MonaVie is a good fruit option… However, if you read the post about the nutrition on the home page here: you’d know that 9 ounces of MonaVie ($16+) is less nutritous than a 75 cent apple.

    bryant wells said,

    “I know several people making good money that were NOT making good money with it 2 years ago.. people were telling them it was a scam too… now THOSE people are making good money.. “

    Way to congratulate those who scam others… Good job…

    bryant wells said,

    “Monavie works for ME.. I am not a distributor… “

    How does it “work” for you.. what does it do specifically…

    bryant wells said,

    “i would like to use it regularly but it is pricy.. “

    You don’t “use” fruit juice…

    bryant wells said,

    “I am probably going to do XB Fit which also has Acai and is half the price as Monavie. I have a another friend trying me to get to do that and probably will. “

    This is another example of distributors not caring much about their product… they are looking for the business plan…

  9. Collusionz Says:


    @Bryant Wells

    If MV had a good thing going, and ACAI was all it was cut out to be… all the major juice companies would be jumping on the bandwagon.

    Welch’s would drop grapes like rotton raisins. there would millions and millions of dollars at stake.

    MV doesn’t hold a patent on freeze dried anything (they claim they do but don’t) Acai is just another fruit, its popularity is growing, thanks in part to MV, and the major fruit companies are rolling out companion products… but they are not walking away from apples and oranges. period. Seriously ponder this, IF Acai were 10 times better the major juice companies would be scrambling to corner this market.

    MV is a MLM pyramid scam, the product is shoddy and overpriced and the people that push it are in it for the money, or in it because they have no clue.

    If the Acai berry is so awesome, why do they put Glucosamine in it?

    I am a distributer myself and take free MV samples whenever my upline obliges me…. and I use it for mixer, might I suggest that you do the same.

    Collusionz

  10. Beatrice Says:

    The problem with this ORAC discussion is that depending on the source (i.e. USDA, Dr. Schauss, UCLA, MonaVie, the above post that states “996.9 umol TE/g for acai vs. 920 umol TE/g for blueberry cranberry”) there are different values quoted.

    [Editor’s note: That’s probably because acai is not blueberry. Hence different values.]

    In addition, it is incorrect to compare the values of freeze-dried acai, raw fruits, acai juice blends, and MonaVie.

    [Editor’s note: By the same token, it is incorrect for MonaVie and its distributors to discuss the ORAC values of freeze-dried acai as we know the ORAC of MonaVie. (It is also incorrect for MonaVie to lie about the ORAC score.

    MonaVie does in fact have a patent on the freeze-drying process they use for acai, which helps to retain much of the nutrient/antioxidant dense pulp and skin (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7563465.html). This is a major advantage that MonaVie has over its acai juice/juice-blend competitors.

    [Editor’s note: Is it really? I can buy freeze-dried acai from Google Shopping. I’m sure that other juice makers can do the same. It seems like MonaVie’s patent is on a particular process for freeze-drying, not for product itself. For instance, Bose may have patents on noise-canceling headphones, but a number of companies make the products and they work quite well. I like Audio Technica’s personally.]

    The fact that Monavie is a combination of freeze-dried acai (highest ORAC value listed by the USDA)

    [Editor’s note: Allow me to interrupt and point out that this is a lie. Ground cloves have a score of 290283]

    and a blend of juices from 18 other fruits that are known to have high ORAC values, would lead me to believe that MonaVie’s ORAC score is closer to the value stated by the company in their 2008 FAQ file, which is 4,000 to 5,000 units per 4 ounces of juice (… I don’t know because this ORAC value is no longer on their current website FAQ section). Like it or not, Dr. Schauss is an expert in his field (especially with regard to acai), and even if the ORAC of 4 ounces of MonaVie really is 2690 units, then his comment still holds true: this “is higher than the range of ORAC values for most common juices.”

    [Editor’s note: So you say that Dr. Schauss is an expert in his field, but yet you discount his scientific testing and instead believe MonaVie’s marketing material. This is completely without logic. Oh and I linked MonaVie’s FAQ for you (see #11)]

    MV Scam, you have made several comments within the above blog post and this blog post (http://www.juicescam.com/dr-joe-schwarcz-warns-against-acai-health-claims/) that allude to the idea that ORAC values are somehow analogous with, or an indicator of, a food’s nutrition value. They are distinctly different. The below definitions should avoid any further confusion to your readers:

    [Editor’s note: MonaVie is the one using the ORAC score as an indicator of a food’s nutritional value. I’m only following their example. Please get them to change their marketing strategy before trying to educate the people here. Readers of this website already are familiar with Dr. Jonny Bowden’s comments about MonaVie and ORAC score. That’s why wrote the article.]

    – “ORAC is an acronym for oxygen radical absorption capacity. ORAC is a way to measure the antioxidant capacity of a food. Foods with high ORAC values are desirable for their ability to inhibit free radical activity. The ORAC measurement was developed by a scientist at the National Institute of Aging in 1992 and has proven to be a valuable tool in quantifying health benefits associated with consuming fruits, vegetables, and other antioxidant-containing foods and supplements.” (http://www.monavie.com/Web/US/en/faq.dhtml)
    – ANTIOXIDANTS are “molecules capable of inhibiting the oxidation of other molecules.” They are not considered to be a nutrient. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioxidants)
    – “There are six major classes of NUTRIENTS: carbohydrates, fats, minerals, protein, vitamins, and water.” Of these, carbohydrates, fats, and proteins are generally accepted as being the major energy contributors to support cellular processes within the body. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition)

    My final point to MV Scam is that you have also misrepresented my single comment that I am UNDERWHELMED with the scientific articles in support of MonaVie at this time. I never said that the science/articles/data were not credible or “dubious” as you have misquoted me on this blog (http://www.juicescam.com/dr-joe-schwarcz-warns-against-acai-health-claims/). I am underwhelmed because as a medical professional, I would like to see more studies using large groups of human subjects. The in-vitro and animal studies have been peer reviewed (and therefore credible) and are very promising.

    [Editor’s note: Peer reviewed doesn’t necessarily equal credible. Please address the number of concerns I brought up about Schauss’ “Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Study” on MonaVie.]

    The limited number of human studies include small groups of healthy subjects, which is fine for obtaining baseline data and gauging effectiveness of study methods. However, if the product proves to be as effective for combating oxidative damage in cells, or facilitating the body’s cellular immune response, both of which have been shown lab studies…or, if the product can in fact provide protection against cardiovascular disease or joint/cartilage degeneration, both of which have been shown in many studies of plant sterols and glucosamine…or, even if it turns out to be true that antioxidants can help fight off cancerous cells, or preserve brain/memory function, which has been demonstrated in rodents…then, I will no longer be UNDERWHELMED with to scientific HUMAN data. The science is good/promising, but more is needed…and if MonaVie continues to invest their money to scientifically validate their product, then kudos to them.

    [Editor’s note: These studies need to be comparative in nature. For a consumer to make a wise purchasing decision and not get scammed into paying high prices, we need to know that MonaVie is better than apple, orange, or a half cup of blueberries. We don’t simply need to know that juice is good, no one is debating that question. We need to quantify exactly how good and have a comparison point. Consumers have a choice of many juices. To justify it’s grossly high pricing, MonaVie needs to prove that its juice is the best. They seem to be trying with their marketing about ORAC scores, but as mentioned above, they fail.]

    Lastly, I don’t particular care about studies on plant sterols or glucosamine since they are cheap additives to the juice. You can get them in a number of places. For 1/88th the price you can get more plant sterols than MonaVie Pulse (see: MonaVie Pulse vs. CholestOff in Lowering Cholesterol). So take a pill and crumble it into a cheaper juice of your choice. You can do the same with glucosamine.]

  11. Mackwiz Says:

    Just one statement I would like to comment on:

    “MonaVie does in fact have a patent on the freeze-drying process they use for acai.”

    So what? I don’t care if they figured out some way to teleport the berry directly from the tree into my mouth, it makes no difference.

    This is a misleading argument, while it is better to get fresher fruits and vegetables, it doesn’t make the fruit vastly superior. When I was a child my father managed a garden and we all ate many fresh fruits and veggies right off the vine. Guess what? Nothing special happened, that’s what. Yeah I know, there were no “superfruits” in what we ate so that doesn’t count, right?

    I don’t care how high freeze-dried acai ORAC score is, because that has nothing to do with MonaVie and as others have pointed out debating ORAC of freeze-dried acai is not necessary because the higher ORAC is due to the water being removed.

    This has all been discussed over and over again on this site. Instead of flooding the comments with data the debaters already know (what ORAC is) and the same old arguments, why not bring the beef?

  12. Anonymous Aussie Says:

    Monavie Scam states “By the same token, it is incorrect for MonaVie and its distributors to discuss the ORAC values of freeze-dried acai as we know the ORAC of MonaVie.”

    Earlier this year I attended the EMv launch here in Australia where Dr Schauss himself did a presentation. His presentation wasn’t on Monavie, of course (because the information and research concerning Monavie is as Beatrice put it, “underwhelming” – to say the least) but on the acai itself.

    All the documentation that was provided to my friend as part of his training as a distributor addressed the ORAC of the acai berry itself, it is as you pointed out the cornerstone of Monavie’s marketing of the product.

    IF there were any benefits associated with being “on the juice”, Monavie would have invested in the trials and wouldn’t leave it up to the distributors to make the illegal and unfounded claims – they’re a billion dollar company after all, yeah. It is now 5 years since the company started and still nothing. Judging by the findings of Dr Schauss, it’s in Monavie’s best interests to ensure that this remains the case.

  13. Vogel Says:

    Aside from the umpteen flaws in Beatripe’s post that our host pointed out, here’s one more that requires correction:

    “MonaVie does in fact have a patent on the freeze-drying process they use for acai.”

    Monavie DOES NOT in fact have a patent. Alexander Schauss and Kenneth Murdock (K2A) have a patent; Monavie’s name is mentioned nowhere on the patent application.

  14. Vogel Says:

    Beatrice said: “The problem with this ORAC discussion is that depending on the source (i.e. USDA, Dr. Schauss, UCLA, MonaVie, the above post that states “996.9 umol TE/g for acai vs. 920 umol TE/g for blueberry cranberry”) there are different values quoted. In addition, it is incorrect to compare the values of freeze-dried acai, raw fruits, acai juice blends, and MonaVie.”

    That’s almost incomprehensible and the underlying logic is nonexistent. This only seems to be a “problem” for you – EVERYONE ELSE GETS IT! The comparisons are straightforward. Acai powder has an atypically high ORAC score because it is dehydrated and therefore undiluted by water. Non-dried acai does not have an extraordinary ORAC score compared to blueberries; the calculation to compensate for water content is so simple that a child could follow it. Fruits contain about 90% water. The ORAC of dehydrated fruit powder can be compared with non-dehydrated fruit by simply compensating for the water content (i.e. dividing the ORAC of dry powder by 10 to get the corresponding ORAC for non-dehydrated fruit).

    It’s funny how these basic concepts and arithmetic that everyone else understands is somehow “incorrect” in your eyes alone. What you really mean is not that the comparison is “incorrect” but merely that the results are not to your liking because you are a Monavie shill and you’ll do anything to obscure the facts that are killing your product.

    Beatrice said: “The fact that Monavie is a combination of freeze-dried acai (highest ORAC value listed by the USDA) and a blend of juices from 18 other fruits that are known to have high ORAC values, would lead me to believe that MonaVie’s ORAC score is closer to the value stated by the company in their 2008 FAQ file, which is 4,000 to 5,000 units per 4 ounces of juice (… I don’t know because this ORAC value is no longer on their current website FAQ section). Like it or not, Dr. Schauss is an expert in his field (especially with regard to acai), and even if the ORAC of 4 ounces of MonaVie really is 2690 units, then his comment still holds true: this “is higher than the range of ORAC values for most common juices.”

    So let me see if I follow you here. Even though (a) Schauss’ own data confirms that the ORAC score of Monavie is low (and he is the guy who holds the acai patent that you were trumpeting about), and (b) even though Men’s Journal and an independent testing lab also showed that Monavie’s ORAC is low — you would rather ignore both sources and instead believe in an ORAC value mentioned once in an outdated 2008 FAQ file, which the company no longer stands behind? OK then; don’t mind if I call you obtuse.

    Beatrice said: “MV Scam, you have made several comments within the above blog post and this blog post (http://www.juicescam.com/dr-joe-schwarcz-warns-against-acai-health-claims/) that allude to the idea that ORAC values are somehow analogous with, or an indicator of, a food’s nutrition value. They are distinctly different. The below definitions should avoid any further confusion to your readers…”

    No one of any consequence here has ever alluded to such a thing. It was Monavie that confused the importance of ORAC/antioxidant capacity versus nutritional value – purposely — in their marketing materials. They hinged the product’s value on its ORAC score; this was because the product had very little demonstrable nutritional value (as indicated by the label). When people argued that Monavie was low in nutrition, the company argued back “maybe so but it is high in antioxidants, anthocyanins, and polypheneols”. Of course the label does not quantify or even mention any of these things, and a simple comparison between the data from Schauss’ study on Monavie and published reference data shows that the claims are untrue. This too, is confirmed by Men’s Journal and the independent testing lab.

    So it doesn’t matter what parameter one chooses to compare: ORAC, vitamins/minerals/fiber, polyphenols, anthocyanins, or proanthocyanadins, or which sources one chooses to consider for comparisons; Monavie loses out badly to more conventional cost-effective options like real fruit or other juices. I don’t see why anyone in their right mind would even attempt to argue otherwise. At $45 a bottle, Monavie should provide about 10 times more of something (anything) important that no other $5 juice or inexpensive piece of fresh fruit can provide.

    Beatrice said: “My final point to MV Scam is that you have also misrepresented my single comment that I am UNDERWHELMED with the scientific articles in support of MonaVie at this time. I never said that the science/articles/data were not credible or “dubious” as you have misquoted me on this blog (http://www.juicescam.com/dr-joe-schwarcz-warns-against-acai-health-claims/). I am underwhelmed because as a medical professional, I would like to see more studies using large groups of human subjects. The in-vitro and animal studies have been peer reviewed (and therefore credible) and are very promising. The limited number of human studies include small groups of healthy subjects, which is fine for obtaining baseline data and gauging effectiveness of study methods. However, if the product proves to be as effective for combating oxidative damage in cells, or facilitating the body’s cellular immune response, both of which have been shown lab studies…or, if the product can in fact provide protection against cardiovascular disease or joint/cartilage degeneration, both of which have been shown in many studies of plant sterols and glucosamine…or, even if it turns out to be true that antioxidants can help fight off cancerous cells, or preserve brain/memory function, which has been demonstrated in rodents…then, I will no longer be UNDERWHELMED with to scientific HUMAN data. The science is good/promising, but more is needed…and if MonaVie continues to invest their money to scientifically validate their product, then kudos to them.”

    You are so incredibly (and dangerously) full of $hit. You point to these BS, very poorly-designed and executed in vitro studies — conducted by hacks and indelibly tainted by conflict of interest — and claim that they are “good/promising” to you as a “medical professional”??? They are barely even worthy of any serious scientific discussion, let alone extension by way of clinical trials in humans. In the absence of reliable human clinical data (which will never be generated), in vitro studies that vaguely imply medical benefits of Monavie shouldn’t even be disclosed to distributors, let alone used universally (and in many cases, illegally) as the basis for marketing of the products. You can’t really be that delusional as to think that these studies are “good”, or even that we believe that you really do think they are good (at least I can’t believe that you would be so ignorant as to think so). Please Beatrash, when you’re shilling for the company, try to come up with more compelling lines of deception than this idiocy.

    People are marketing this $hit as a cure for cancer and autism and brain injuries. As an alleged “medical professional”, that should be the single one and ONLY thing that concerns you. That alone has the potential to cause greater harm than any minute bit of perceived good that Monavie could do (i.e., partially wetting the throats of consumers at $45 a bottle and providing as much nutrition as a few bites of fruit).

  15. Mackwiz Says:

    “People are marketing this $hit as a cure for cancer and autism and brain injuries. As an alleged “medical professional”, that should be the single one and ONLY thing that concerns you. That alone has the potential to cause greater harm than any minute bit of perceived good that Monavie could do.”

    Amen. The dangerous illegal claims outweigh any benefits MonaVie could possibly give. The “I don’t agree with the illegal claims but I still like MonaVie” excuse doesn’t add up, and instead of coming on here and called us neurotics, Beatrice should be banging down MonaVie’s doors to get them to stop distributors from making illegal claims by any means necessary. Any self-respecting medical professional would take that route.

  16. MonaVie Scam Says:

    And that is just one of the annoying things about Beatrice. She knows there’s a problem with the illegal claims from the MLM community. We’ve pointed out a reasonable solution (don’t use the MLM marketing system) that allows people to still consume the juice if they want. There is a clear win for consumers all the way around, even if you are a proponent of the product.

    So why isn’t this alleged medical professional (with allegedly no financial stake in MonaVie) looking out for consumers interests? It simply doesn’t add up.

  17. Vogel Says:

    That’s the kind of two-dimensional product advocate that $16-an-hour buys.

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

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

Previous: MonaVie vs. Aspirin/Tylenol
Next: MonaVie Knows Their Juice Can’t Treat Medical Conditions