Looking for the complete story about LifeVantage Protandim? Read Lazy Man and Money's post about Protandim.

Many have noted that Dr. Dan Royal's past has been ugly. That ugly past is too long for me to recap there, so I suggest you click on the above link and read it.

Now Dan Royal is looking to pull off a new scam. A scam within a scam. How is he looking to do this? Through a LifeVantage Challenge. Let

Here's how it works. Let's see if you can spot the scam:

  1. Go to the website: www.royalmedicalclinic.com
  2. Fill out patient forms (below) and either fax to (702) 938-5844 or scan and email to [email protected]:

    a) LFVN Nutritional Assessment;
    b) Patient Information; and
    c) Patient History.

  3. Pay Administrative Fee of $100 for Nutritional Assessment or Homeopathic Consultation to Royal Medical Group (“RMG”) by credit card or PayPal, calling (702) 938-5055, faxing (702) 938-5844 or emailing: [email protected]
  4. Get blood test for MicroNutrient Test:

    a) Physician orders test from SpectraCell;
    b) Test kit is shipped to participant;
    c) Participant has blood drawn and sample shipped to SpectraCell;
    a. Insurance patients must include insurance information and/or copy of their insurance card, along with co-pay of $160;
    b. Cash patients must pay RMG $320 via credit card, PayPal, or check.
    d) Physician receives and reviews test results and provides a copy to participant.

    CIGNA, Medicaid, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield in TX, IL, OK, NM, SC and TN are not billable insurances and cash must be paid.

  5. Take Protandim as prescribed by physician.

    a) Participant should obtain Protandim from LFVN Distributor; but
    b) If Participant does not have Distributor, he/she may purchase Protandim at: www.mylifevantage.com/royal.

  6. Participant repeats blood test in 3-6 months or as recommended by Physician.

Here's the PDF outlining those instructions.

Did you catch it? Dan Royal collects the $100 administrative fee plus whatever commissions he gets from people buying the product in part 5b. That $100 doesn't sound like that much, does it? Well it also looks like those with insurance have to pay a $160 co-pay to Royal Medical Group and those without pay $320. If you read the summary of the his PowerPoint at LifeVantage Elite he's looking to get 1,000 people to take the test. That's $100,000 in his pocket in administrative fees, and around $160,000 in co-pays, plus the product commissions.

Who else wins in this? Well LifeVantage gets distributors to foot the bill for testing its product. If the test comes out good, they will certain trumpet it as a success. If it comes out to do nothing, it will likely never see the light of day and Dan Royal will quietly end the challenge. One thing is for sure, this test by using people who are likely distributors to begin with will be biased and subject to a very significant placebo effect.

Who is the loser in this? It is the poor victim of the scam, the distributors. It's unlikely that health insurance is going to consider one nutritional assessment a good use of their money, much less two in a 3-6 month span. They are much more likely to suggest that you buy a cheap multivitamin and kick you out of their office. So in reality, the distributor is looking at paying $640 for two tests, $100 for an administrative fee, $300 in 6 months - a total of over $1000. Why pay $1000 to prove that someone else's product works? LifeVantage should be footing the bill, not the distributors.

How else does the distributor lose in this? The distributor has to give up any claim to being a patient. Does your doctor make you do that? If so, I would hope you'd get a new doctor right away. Here's the agreement to participating in the program. It states:

"Guarantees: I acknowledge that RMG has not made any promises or guarantees to me regarding my medical condition(s) and that RMG’s assessment does not constitute a physician-patient relationship."

It doesn't end there. The agreement also requires that you go through binding arbitration instead of suing for damages:

"Arbitration: I agree that any claim or dispute arising out of this Agreement shall be subject to binding arbitration pursuant to the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and conducted by a single AAA arbitrator in Henderson, Nevada. In no event shall either party be entitled to punitive damages."

Finally the non-patient (I don't know what else to call the distributor signing this) receives all care through telephone or email.

"ROYAL MEDICAL GROUP...will perform either a telemedicine nutritional assessment or homeopathic consult via email and/or phone."

An email consultation... that seems to be what the $100 administrative fee gets you.

It seems odd to trust Dan Royal's expertise. In both documents he mentions that Protandim is prescribed by a physician. Next time you visit your doctor ask him to write a prescription for a Protandim and see what he says. Or perhaps if you find yourself at a drug store ask the pharmacists how many prescriptions for Protandim they fill each day.

In seriousness, please don't bother your doctor and pharmacists about Protandim. They are busy enough without having to deal with pranks designed to prove Dan Royal's ignorance.

Originally posted 2011-10-11 01:24:46.

This post involves:

Dr. Dan Royal

... and focuses on:

The following is a closely paraphrased version of the comment and research by Vogel:

The latest jerk who’s illegally promoting Protandim as a disease cure is Pro 6 LifeVantage distributor Stephen West. This [jerk] is particularly dangerous because not only is he fraudulently promoting Protandim as a disease cure but he’s also fraudulently promoting himself as a "doctor" and a "healer". He illegally uses "Dr." in front of his name and claims to have a doctorate in "lymphology" – however no such degree exists and "lymphology" is nothing more than pseudoscientific BS.

Here is his disclaimer regarding the BS mail order degrees he professes to hold. Legit degrees don't require lengthy disclaimers.

Here is one of West’s Protandim promo pages. This page contains some whopping lies about Protandim, such as the following:

“Dr Joe McCord also discovered the Protandim formula and has been nominated for 4 Nobel Prizes in Medicine.”
“It can take six to seven months or longer for some people to really begin to see some of the long term positive effects of Protandim.”

Side note: You don't "discover" a proprietary mixture of ingredients. Also McCord didn't contribute significantly to Protandim by his own admission. Finally Nobel Prize nominations are anonymous and any of thousands of people can nominate any thousands of people.

This comment from West was gobsmacking too; amazingly, West waxes enthusiastically about how it caused loss of appetite…hardly a good thing:

“The first 3 months of being on the product... Missing a meal two or three times a week (or more) went almost un-noticed as I was traveling and very busy. During a lunch break in the middle of a Saturday workshop in Huntington Beach, CA, someone asked me if I was hungry and I said, ‘Not really’ — and it was then that I realized it had been 24 hours since I had eaten anything.”

West then goes on to illegally promote Protandim as a treatment for diabetes:

“One of the new success stories that has come up was someone with Diabetes who noticed a real measurable improvement after 7 months of consistent Protandim use.”

Then he tacitly acknowledges that distributors (like him) are not allowed to promote the product for the treatment of diseases (which he already did) and then tells people to just go ahead and do it anyway using PubMed as the vehicle (promotion using PubMed in this manner is still illegal).

“23 different independent studies by different independent universities began over 5 years ago and now some of them have been published, all on different diseases which names we’ve been told not to disclose on our websites, but we can point you to them so you can discover them for yourself.”

Then the moron basically suggested that people should skip meals and use their food money to buy Protandim instead:

“How much money do you spend each month on food? (After 3 months Dr West noticed that this was paying for Protandim alone.)”

For more insight into the dangerous quack-antics of this piece of human excrement, check out the following pages; be prepared to laugh, and cry.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3

Originally posted 2013-05-09 00:36:38.

This post involves:

LifeVantage Protandim Distributors

... and focuses on:

I was just mentioning how LiveVantage’s Policies and Procedures contradicts itself to a friend. She made an additional point that I missed. As of September 13, 2011, Section 8.11.2 of LifeVantage's Policies and Procedures (PDF) reads:

"An Independent Distributor that provides a product experience testimonial in any medium should use care to disclose their affiliation with LifeVantage ('LifeVantage Independent Distributor'), be honest in their testimonial personal experience, and assert that they are not claiming that their experience is the typical result experienced by consumers."

On the surface this sounds pretty responsible. However, as was previously pointed out in the aforementioned article, is no typical result experienced by consumers so Independent Distributors can make no claims.

What I had missed, though, is that the Independent Distributor can't even make the claim WHILE disclosing that it is not typical. The FTC's Endorsement Guidelines read:

"Example 1: A brochure for a baldness treatment consists entirely of testimonials from satisfied customers who say that after using the product, they had amazing hair growth and their hair is as thick and strong as it was when they were teenagers. The advertiser must have competent and reliable scientific evidence that its product is effective in producing
new hair growth.

The ad will also likely communicate that the endorsers’ experiences are representative of what new users of the product can generally expect. Therefore, even if the advertiser includes a disclaimer such as, “Notice: These testimonials do not prove our product works. You should not expect to have similar results,” the ad is likely to be deceptive unless the advertiser has adequate substantiation that new users typically will experience results similar to those experienced by the testimonialists."

The FTC clarified this point in another FAQ about the Revised Guidelines with another example:

"In our ads we want to feature endorsements from consumers who achieved the best results with our product. Can we do that under the revised Guides?

Testimonials claiming specific results usually will be interpreted to mean that the endorser’s experience is what others can expect. Statements like “Results not typical” or “Individual results may vary” won’t change that interpretation. That leaves advertisers with two choices:

  • Have adequate proof to back up the claim that the results shown in the ad are typical, or
  • Clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected performance in the circumstances shown in the ad
  • How would this principle apply in a real ad?

    The revised Guides include a lot of examples with practical advice for marketers. Suppose an ad features an endorsement from 'Mary G.' who says, 'I lost 50 pounds in 6 months with WeightAway.' This ad likely conveys that Mary G.'s experience is typical of what consumers will achieve by using the product. If consumers can’t expect to get those results, the ad likely would mislead consumers unless it makes clear what consumers can expect to lose in similar circumstances – for example, 'Most women who use WeightAway for six months lose at least 15 pounds.'"

By suggesting that Independent Distributors disclose that the results aren't typical ignores the FTC Guidelines that they either need to be able to back up the claim with adequate proof (which doesn't exist for any Protandim claim on humans) or that they disclose the general expected performance (which is no expected change for the customer of the product).

In other words, it seems every conceivable testimony for Protandim would be considered deceptive by the FTC. LifeVantage, instead of recognizing this and making distributors aware of these guidelines, hides behind the inadequate and antiquated notion of telling distributors to say, "results not typical." That's no longer sufficient according to the FTC.

Originally posted 2011-09-13 23:01:41.

This post involves:

Protandim and FTC

... and focuses on:

A lot of people ask this very question. The short answer is that it has never been sufficiently tested and this website has shown that the company in general shouldn't be trusted as they've been caught purposely lying to the public about Protandim as well as breaking FDA and FTC laws in promoting it.

I want to share a few words from Chris Redmond that may help you see it clearly:

"Let’s look at Protandim, and create two simple models or theories.

Theory one is that Protandim works as LifeVantage claims. Now, if this were the case we could reasonably expect and predict the following:

  1. Anecdotal accounts of all round improvements in health, exactly as described in LifeVantage literature.
  2. Serious debate about Protandim in the media as the anecdotal evidence is subsequently supported by General Practitioners and health professionals who are able to corroborate these anecdotal accounts
  3. LifeVantage to start multiple human trials of Protandim, confident that any cost will be an investment as the science behind their product is solid, and the results being experienced by customers confirms Protandim’s effectiveness.
  4. Results from the trials show beyond a reasonable doubt that Protandim works as described.
  5. Medical professionals across the globe have instant access to the results of these studies, and en masse begin to endorse Protandim, with the proviso it is not a medication.
  6. Demand for Protandim increases dramatically, production struggles to keep up with demand, and as more results from trials are published LifeVantage’s stock is exploding.

If this model is the one anyone recognizes I’d be interested to know.

The second theory is that Protandim does not work, and if this was the case we’d could reasonably expect to see:

  1. Anecdotal accounts of all round improvements in health, exactly as described in LifeVantage literature.
  2. A lack of serious debate about Protandim in the media as the anecdotal evidence is not subsequently supported by General Practitioners and health professionals who are able to corroborate these anecdotal accounts.
  3. LifeVantage to avoid using multiple human trials of Protandim, as the science behind their product is not solid and the results being experienced by customers is only anecdotal and can be explained perfectly by placebo.
  4. Results from any human trials that are carried out show that Protandim does not work, or that placebo is more effective.
  5. LifeVantage do not carry out further human trials, preferring to cherry pick any positive results of trials involving ingredients of Protandim.
  6. Medical professionals across the globe do not take Protandim seriously because it has no trails or evidence to support the claims of it’s manufacturer.
  7. Demand for Protandim decreases, LifeVantage’s stock is imploding, it is decided to sell Protandim via the tried and tested avenue of pyramid marketing.

I could go on, anybody could, but basically Protandim fits the model of an over-hyped product with zero hard evidence of any health benefit perfectly, and LifeVantage perfectly fit the model of a company who realize this.

(I've taken the liberty to "Americanize" some of the British English. Hopefully Chris forgives me.)

Originally posted 2013-02-07 18:39:05.

This post involves:


... and focuses on:

[This article is intended to serve as a summary of other articles available on this site. Comments can be left on those other articles.]

LifeVantage makes a big deal about Dr. Joe McCord. However a little research shows this is unwarranted.

For example, LifeVantage lied about Joe McCord inventing Protandim. The true inventor of Protandim is Paul Myhill who has no background in science. Paul Myhill admits the following in an interview with Blogtalk radio:

"Because the core composition came from a very unlikely source – me – we initially decided to hide that fact for marketing purposes and instead rely on the impeccable background of Dr. McCord."

Having said that, it's worth asking who much Dr. Joe McCord was paid to be part of the deception. A look into the company's SEC files shows that Dr. Joe McCord’s Financial Interest In LifeVantage/Protandim is significant which included a 10% ownership in the company when he signed on in 2004, worth millions. Since then he's been granted over a million stock options meaning that he can gain millions more if the company performs well.

In this sense, Dr. Joe McCord is acting as a celebrity endorser, which is best summed up in this Dave Chappelle short comedy bit (note: minor adult language):

Originally posted 2011-09-10 00:27:10.

This post involves:

Joe McCord

... and focuses on:

I just received an email from LifeVantage Protandim distributor Peter Davidson. It asked me to go to gotoabcnews.com to learn about something that "could make a significant difference" in my life.

In going to that website, it was big advertisement for Protandim. Clearly a LifeVantage distributor registered the domain with the intention capitalizing on ABC News' trademark for their own business purposes. Clearly this wasn't a website registered by ABC News for their own purposes. The website isn't used for the purpose of discussing ABC News or any other legit use. According to GoDaddy that seems to be Mike Garrard of Macy, Indiana.

It's disappointing, but hardly suprising, that LifeVantage can't keep its distributors from breaking spam law and trademark laws.

Originally posted 2011-09-06 02:08:08.

This post involves:

LifeVantage Protandim Distributors

... and focuses on:


[The following is a guest post from Vogel...]

Another knee-slapper regarding Protandim’s laughable research. Watch as the story unfolds…

Three of the published articles on Protandim (2 studies on skin cancer in mice, and one review article on the same topic) featured someone named Delira Robbins as an author.

  1. Robbins D, Zhao Y. The role of manganese superoxide dismutase in skin cancer. Enzyme Res. 2011;2011:409295. Epub 2011 Mar 23.
  2. Robbins D, Gu X, Shi R, Liu J, Wang F, Ponville J, McCord JM, Zhao Y. The chemopreventive effects of Protandim: modulation of p53 mitochondrial translocation and apoptosis during skin carcinogenesis. PLoS One. 2010 Jul 30;5(7):e11902.
  3. Liu J, Gu X, Robbins D, Li G, Shi R, McCord JM, Zhao Y. Protandim, a fundamentally new antioxidant approach in chemoprevention using mouse two-stage skin carcinogenesis as a model. PLoS One. 2009;4(4):e5284.

[Note: Here’s a video of McCord hyping up 2 of these studies at a Protandim distributor meeting.]

The most recent Protandim publication, featuring Robbins as primary author, was a review article (not actual research) on skin cancer, in which the product was hyped as a potential remedy. This study was leveraged by LFVN, who used it as PR fodder, blasting the news about the study in a corporate press release earlier this year.

In September 2010, LFVN also sent out a corporate PR blast about one of Robbins’ other studies (the one published in the crap online pseudo-journal PLoSOne), in which the company claimed that the study was funded by Louisiana State University.

Now here’s the punch-line. Delira Robbins is a grad student whose highest degree certification to date is a Bachelors of Science.

So in other words, this so-called expert who wrote this allegedly epic review article on Protandim and skin cancer, and authored/executed those 2 allegedly earth-shattering studies in mice, is a non-expert; she’s a simple science grad student at Louisiana State U with no legitimate expert credentials.

My strong hunch is that Delira Robbins' doctoral research, which appears to be focused solely on Protandim, is being funded by LFVN, either directly from a stipend or indirectly through funds paid to her supervisor Yunfeng Zhao.

Interestingly, I saw a couple of job ads that Zhao had recently posted for postdoctoral research fellows. (Notice how poor the salary is - sad.)

I checked the NIH grant database and it shows that no grants were awarded to Zhao, so I wonder where he’s getting the money to hire a post-doc, and whether that post-doc will be relegated to conjuring up more BS to feed LFVN’s PR spin doctors.

[Editor's Conclusion: This seems to be sound research and backs up what Protandim Inventor Paul Myhill said about encouraging research]

Originally posted 2011-08-23 04:32:00.

This post involves:

LifeVantage Lies, Protandim Studies

... and focuses on:

It's come to my attention that Montel Williams appears to be breaking the law according to the FTC and the FDA. How so? Well I watched this video on YouTube:

Here are some of the points that I found interesting:

  • Montel mentions going Against Medical Advice (AMA) at around 2:20 and 3:25. The paid endorser for LifeVantage is suggesting that doctors, who have spent most of their lives studying how to help people with their medical conditions, shouldn't be listened to. This is extremely dangerous information to spread and it's irresponsible for Mr. Williams who claims at 3:33 that there are a lot of people who rely on him.
  • At the 4:10 point in the video, Montel Williams claims to have seen some of the best MS doctors and that he's still dealing with the same issues. Montel, this isn't rocket science, simply read what the NIH says about MS treatment. It's pretty straight-forward (and there's no mention of Protandim anywhere there).
  • At the 6:15 mark Montel Williams says, "This isn't a double-blind study, this isn't a clinical study" and then claims that Protandim helped him with symptoms of MS. This is explicitly against the LifeVantage Policy and Procedures (see third bullet point below) and LifeVantage is not only condoning it, but paying a celebrity endorser to do it.
  • From 8:30 to 8:50 Montel Williams he clearly credits Protandim as having a therapeutic effect that can only be claimed from drugs as defined by the FDA (see the 4th bullet point below).

Allow me to make a few points about the video that are not explicitly mentioned:

  • Montel Williams is a distributor of LifeVantage according to this LifeVantage press release. It's also likely that he was paid speaking fees for this appearance as most celebrities are, but neither party is discloses such information as best I can tell.
  • No claims of any LifeVantage products, including Protandim, may be made about its ability to aid in any disease according to LifeVantage's Policies and Procedures (PDF) set forth by their compliance department:

    "No claims, which include personal testimonials, as to therapeutic, curative or beneficial properties of any products offered by LifeVantage may be made except those contained in official LifeVantage materials. In particular, no Independent Distributor may make any claim that LifeVantage products are useful in the cure, treatment, diagnosis, mitigation or prevention of any diseases or signs or symptoms of disease. Not only are such claims violations of LifeVantage policies, but they potentially violate federal and state laws and regulations, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and Federal Trade Commission Act."

  • The above quote by LifeVantage mentioned that such claims may violate the FDA's Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The FDA is quite busy and very underfunded with the government deficient, but it does crack down on violations when it comes across them. One example is this letter to MonaVie distributor Kevin Vokes (PDF). A relevant portion of that is:

    "This is to advise you that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reviewed your web site at the Internet address http://www.acai-berry.com and has determined that your products “MonaVie Original,” “MonaVie Active,” “MonaVie Combo,” and “MonaVie Gel” are promoted for conditions that cause the products to be drugs under section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)]. The therapeutic claims on your web site establish that the products are drugs because they are intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease. The marketing of these products with these claims violates the Act."

  • The FTC has released it's own guidelines on endorsements, which clearly this is. According to the FTC:
    • Endorsements must be truthful and not misleading;
    • If the advertiser doesn’t have proof that the endorser’s experience represents what consumers will achieve by using the product, the ad must clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected results in the depicted circumstances; and
    • If there’s a connection between the endorser and the marketer of the product that would affect how people evaluate the endorsement, it should be disclosed."

    We have no way of determining the truth of Montel Williams' claims, but we do know that the FTC specifically mentions multiple sclerosis (MS) as one of those product that are targeted by miracle cures and that "Unfortunately, these products, devices, and treatments often are unproven and useless, making promises they can’t fulfill." In other words, the FTC indirectly has already claimed that it is not possible for Montel Williams to have told the truth.

    The advertiser, LifeVantage in this case, doesn't have proof that the endorser's (Montel Williams) experience represents what consumers will achieve by using the product. This video does not disclose the generally expected results... such as the product doesn't aid with any medical condition.

    Finally the connection between the endorser (Montel Williams) and the marketer (LifeVantage) doesn't seem to be disclosed in the video. However, LifeVantage deserves some credit for having disclosed the connection in a press release more than two years ago.

It looks to me that clearly Montel Williams is not only breaking LifeVantage's Policy and Procedures, but he's also breaking the FTC endorsement guidelines, as well as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Update: It seems like he's willing to credit anything that is willing to put money in his product. Now he's crediting medical marijuana for his health:

“Prescription drugs nearly shut down my kidneys. Then a doctor suggested I try medical marijuana,” said Williams, who credits pot for improving his health and well-being.

Originally posted 2011-07-08 00:43:19.

This post involves:

FDA, Protandim and FTC

... and focuses on:

, , ,

One of the more interesting things about LifeVantage is its history. If you look at the LifeVantage website, the press releases start in 2008. What is interesting about this is that it whitewashes the company's history. LifeVantage doesn't mention that the company used to be called Lifeline.

Lifeline was famous for attempting to bring a product called CMX-1152 to market. It was developed by a company called CereMedix. Why is this notable? Well CMX-1152 was to be called Protandim and it just happens to do what Protandim claims to do today. Back in 2003 Lifeline issued a press release that it "attained the perpetual, exclusive, worldwide rights to an innovative oral supplement being heralded as the first real hope in the battle against oxidative stress."

I'm going to go out on a limb and presume perpetual, exclusive, worldwide licenses for innovative things are expensive, very expensive.

Everything was going well, except that years later the deal fell through. This article from The Scientist tells the story:

"According to a representative of Ceremedix who preferred to remain anonymous, Lifeline began calling CMX-1152 'Protandim,' although it is unclear who suggested the name. After the deal between the companies fell apart (for unknown reasons) Ceremedix dropped CMX-1152, and began concentrating on other therapeutic areas."


The Protandim that was introduced in February 2005 is a completely different formulation from 1152. Online searches bring up pages describing both. At one point, Lifeline filed a statement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, saying that 'several erroneous and misleading statements' were made in a Denver network broadcast, and Protandim 'is in no way comprised of, or related to, Ceremedix's peptide.' Company representatives from Lifeline did not return requests for comment."

As the article points out, neither company has been forthcoming about the deal fell apart between the companies. It is worth noting that CMX-1152 isn't available today. Perhaps in further clinical testing it proved to be ineffective. That seems to be the only reason I can think of why it wouldn't be on the market in some capacity.

The educated reader probably has two thoughts at this point:

  • With what would appear to be a lot of money invested in the licensing of CMX-1152, a smart financial move for the company would be to find a product it can sell.
  • With years of mentioning Protandim in press releases building up the anticipation of the product, the company would benefit the most by producing a product to capitalize on the Protandim brand.

The ideal solution to this problem would be to create another product that has the same "innovative" and "break-through" benefits (words from the Lifeline press release mentioned above) of CMX-1152. The odds of being able to create such a product would clearly be astronomical since no one else has been able to do it previously. Based on the article in The Scientist, Lifeline was able to do it in just a few months. To make the odds even longer, Lifeline relied on Paul Myhill who had no medical background.

The history of Protandim should cause the wise consumer to wait until the company proves the product effective via clinical large scale, placebo-controlled, human trials and FDA approval.

Originally posted 2011-06-19 22:17:59.

This post involves:

Protandim History

... and focuses on:

It has come to my attention from Dr. Harriett Hall's article on Protandim (via Protandim Watch) that LifeVantage second patent application may break the FDA's law. The part that I'm looking at is the following quote on page 28 of the patent application:

"The compositions of the present invention are useful to prevent or treat the following disorders and diseases: memory loss; Parkinson’s disease; aging; toxin-induced hepatotoxicity, inflammation; liver cirrhosis; chronic hepatitis; and diabetes due to cirrhosis; indigestion; fatigue; stress; cough; infertility; tissue inflammation; cancer; anxiety disorders; panic attacks; rheumatism; pain; manic depression; alcoholic paranoia; schizophrenia; fever; insomnia; infertility; aging; skin inflammations and disorders; alcoholism; anemia; carbuncles; convalescence; emaciation; HIV; AIDS; immune system problems; lumbago; multiple sclerosis; muscle energy loss; paralysis; swollen glands; ulcers; breathing difficulties; inflammation; psoriasis; cancer (e.g.; prostate cancer, lung cancer and breast cancer); pain; cardiovascular disease (e.g.; arteriosclerosis and atherosclerosis); ischemia/reperfusion injury; anxiety; attention deficit disorder; leprosy; arthritis (e.g., psoriatic arthritis; ankylosing spondylitis; and rheumatoid arthritis); hemorrhoids; tuberculosis; high blood pressure; congestive heart failure; venous insufficiency (pooling of blood in the veins; usually in the legs); sore throat; hepatitis; syphilis; stomach ulcers; epilepsy; diarrhea; asthma; burns; piles; sunburn; wrinkles; headache; insect bites; cuts; ulcers; sores; herpes; jaundice; bursitis; canker sores; sore gums; poison ivy; gastritis; high cholesterol; heart disease; bacterial infection; viral infection; acne; aging; immune disorders; dental caries; periodontitis; halitosis; dandruff; cardiovascular disease (e.g., hypertension; thrombosis; arteriosclerosis); migraine headaches; diabetes; elevated blood glucose; diseases of the alimentary canal and respiratory system; age-related physical and mental deterioration (e.g., Alzheimer’s Disease and age-related dementia); cardiovascular disease; cerebral vascular insufficiency and impaired cerebral performance; congestive symptoms of premenstrual syndrome; allergies; age-related vision loss; depression; Raynaud’s disease; peripheral vascular disease; intermittent claudication; vertigo; equilibrium disorder; prevention of altitude sickness; tinnitus (ringing in the ear); liver fibrosis; macular degeneration; asthma; graft rejection; and immune disorders that induce toxic shock; bronchpulmonary disease as cystic fibrosis; chronic bronchitis; gastritis; heart attack; angina pectoris; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; kidney damage during coronary angiography; Unverricht-Lundborg disease; pseudoporphyria; pneumonia; and paracetamol hepatotoxicity."

This immediately reminds me of the quote from the FTC warning about scams that I referenced here: Protandim, Miracle Claims, Scientific Breakthroughs, and the FTC:

"Miracle products claim to cure serious conditions — often conditions that science has no cure for, like arthritis, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, cancer, and HIV-AIDS. Some products even claim to be a ‘cure-all’ for several diseases and a host of symptoms. Often, the ads claim the products come with money-back guarantees. Unfortunately, these products, devices, and treatments often are unproven and useless, making promises they can’t fulfill."

It appears that every single one of the conditions that the FTC warns about is in the list. Even more interesting is that several conditions such as cancer, gastritis, cardiovascular disease, asthma, infertility, and diabetes are listed more than once. The patent lists "aging" three times (Fountain of Youth, anyone?).

It is interesting to read "The compositions of the present invention are useful to prevent or treat the following disorders and diseases:" and then find on LifeVantage's own FAQ: "Protandim is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." Clearly LifeVantage is confused about the intentions of its own product. One has to ask the question why should consumers have any trust in LifeVantage or Protandim when the company clearly doesn't know what their own product is intended to do?

Where does this patent perhaps break the law? Well section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B) says that drug is defined as "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals." From the words in the patent, LifeVantage views Protandim to fit the FDA's definition of being a "drug."

However, for such claims to be made, the product itself must be approved by the FDA through a process called the New Drug Application (NDA). To the best of my knowledge (and any doubters feel free to prove otherwise), LifeVantage has NOT filed with the FDA to classify Protandim as drug.

It seems one could view this patent application as violating the FDA's laws regarding dietary supplements (which is what Protandim is classified as).

Originally posted 2011-06-18 21:22:03.

This post involves:

FDA, Protandim and FTC

... and focuses on: