One of the most common things a potential LifeVantage distributor will hear is the background of a Dr. Joe McCord. Dr. Joe McCord and LifeVantage Protandim are almost synonymous at this point. LifeVantage would like for potential distributors to believe they are synonymous because it gives the impression that Protandim was developed by a doctor. However we know that Protandim was invented by Paul Myhill who has no medical background.

Since this fact seems to be public knowledge it was quite puzzling to find the following on LifeVantage.com

[Click to see the larger, more readable view...]

Here's a quote:

"Our breakthrough product, Protandim, was created by Dr. Joe McCord, a world-renowned scientist, pioneer of Free Radical Biology, and discoverer of the anti-aging enzyme Superoxide Dismutase in 1969. He received the Elliot Cresson Medal from The Franklin Institute—awarded to distinguished inventors and scientists, putting Dr. McCord in the same company as Pierre and Marie Curie, Alexander Graham Bell, Orville Wright, and Henry Ford."

Update: Paul Myhill has supplied irrefutable documentation from McCord himself that his contributions do not qualify him as inventor of Protandim. McCord says specifically, "Again, I must congratulate you and Paul for having framed the concept of Protandim so close to its final embodiment, prior to the beginnings of our association.":

I added a little bolding for emphasis on the company claiming that Protandim was created by Dr. Joe McCord. This seems to be the lie the company is still telling as I write this on May 14th, 2011.

The rest of the quote is also noteworthy. They mention a lot of prestigious people. If you didn't know that it was a lie about Dr. Joe McCord creating Protandim you might judge Protandim to be the "breakthrough product" the page touts. However, we know better. We know the truth because Protandim inventor Paul Myhill spilled the beans in an interview with Blogtalk radio. He specifically states:

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.

It sounds like Paul Myhill was wrong about one thing... the word "initially." Years after he admitted to the deceit the company continued to hide the fact that Dr. McCord didn't create Protandim. In the previous quote we also see how the company is relying on his impeccable background. Today, the company continues to mislead consumers by giving them the impression Dr. McCord was prominently involved when in fact his name isn't on the patent. The page gives no mention to Paul Myhill as the inventor at all.

[Update: As of September 9th, 2011, LifeVantage has updated the language on the page to read, "Dr. Joe McCord is the scientist behind our breakthrough product, Protandim." This replaces the text of "Our breakthrough product, Protandim, was created by Dr. Joe McCord."

Update 2: In a filing with the SEC, the company makes no mention of McCord having any hand in the invention of Protandim. In fact, the exact quote is:

"His joining of Lifeline Nutraceuticals not only adds industry credibility for our technology, but it also sets the stage for the commercialization of numerous advances in SOD anti-oxidant therapies."

This clearly shows that McCord is with LifeVantage as a spokesman, and as of the filing on October 13, 2005 - 8 months after the herbal Protandim replaced CMX-1152 Protandim - he joined to add credibility to Lifeline's existing Protandim product.

Update 3: This article shows that McCord was passing himself off as the inventor]

Originally posted 2011-05-14 21:26:18.

This post involves:

Joe McCord, LiveVantage Lies

... and focuses on:

Paul Myhill

[Editor's Note: Once again Vogel has come through with key Protandim finding. This article is based on that research.]

LifeVantage has been fairly vocal about Protandim being an Nrf2 activator. The theory is that this is a good thing as it helps to reduce oxidative stress, the biggest claim that LifeVantage makes of it's product. What Vogel has found is that curcumin, which is the active ingredient in turmeric, an ingredient in Protandim, was shown to activate Nrf2 back in May of 2003 - a full two years before inventor Paul Myhill put it in Protandim. Read the research abstract about curcumin here: Curcumin activates the haem oxygenase-1 gene via regulation of Nrf2 and the antioxidant-responsive element.

If you are interested in Nrf2 activation, you can buy 100 Caps of turmeric 720mg for $4.99 on Amazon. Protandim only contains 75mg of turmeric at a cost of around $1.70 a pill. For less than 5 cents a pill, you'll get nearly 10 times the amount Nrf2 activation that the turmeric in Protandim provides.

However, before you buy that turmeric, you might want to read this other piece of research: Curcumin induces heme oxygenase 1 through generation of reactive oxygen species, p38 activation and phosphatase inhibition. This research essentially says that curcumin stimulates free radical production. The body, in response to this, activates nrf2 to protect itself.

Here is the conclusion of the research abstract:

"In conclusion, curcumin treatment results in ROS generation, activation of Nrf2 and MAP kinases and the inhibition of phosphatase activity in hepatocytes, and when curcumin is not administered in toxic doses, these multiple pathways converge to induce HO-1."

It may be helpful to brush up on Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and note the use of "generation" in that quote.

Just to sum up everything and make it clear... Curcumin is what activates Nrf2 and doing so actually increases oxidative stress - the exact opposite of what LifeVantage is claiming.

Originally posted 2011-09-08 02:53:16.

This post involves:

Protandim Studies

... and focuses on:

curcumin, nrf2 activation

Somehow, I've been put on a LifeVantage distributor email distribution list. I didn't ask to be, but I guess someone saw that I write about Protandim and put my email on the list and sold it to people. That's the only thing I can think of.

Anyway, I got an interesting email from LifeVantage Distributor Dave Tarr the other day. It said:

"Hello Fellow Life Vantage Distributor,

I hope your your getting younger and feeling great with Protandim and Life Vantage products.

I am a LV distributor in Mexico and though you may find this interesting to help your lifevantage business."

I kept the grammatical error ("your your" instead of just "you're") in there as it is an exact quote. I'm writing about the claim that LifeVantage products play a role in one "getting younger." This is clearly not the case. LifeVantage products do not reverse the aging process like as if the person were Benjamin Button.

At this point, I'm too afraid of further illegal claims to watch the the video his email spam is trying to get people to watch.

Originally posted 2011-08-07 15:41:42.

This post involves:

LifeVantage Protandim Distributors

... and focuses on:

David Tarr

[The following post is from Vogel. Here he shines a spotlight on LifeVantage's attempt to mislead and lie to consumers once again.]

Just came across a corporate press release from LFVN in which they made the following claim:

“Protandim Is Certified by Banned Substances Control Group (BSCG) as Safe for Consumers and Athletes”

BSCG is a so-called certifying "organization" – but one that seems to serve the MLM industry exclusively (red flag #1).

What's really deceptive about the press release is that the BSCG does not conduct "safety" tests; they only test for the presence of substances banned for competitive athletes. It’s one thing for the company to say that Protandim is certified to be free of substances banned by the IOC, for example, which is relevant only if one is a competitive athlete who doesn’t want to fail a doping test after ingesting a dietary supplement. However, it’s a straight up lie to claim that Protandim "has been certified... as safe for consumers”. The BSCG provided no such certification about safety or anything relevant to non-athletes (i.e. general consumers).

Under US law, supplement manufacturers are not allowed to make unqualified safety claims about their products unless they submit reliable safety data from high-quality studies to the FDA for assessment and approval. LFVN has not done so. In fact, they have no published human safety data at all. When supplement manufacturers use GRAS ("generally recognized as safe") ingredients, there is an inherent assumption that they are “generally” safe, but there are many examples of supplements with GRAS ingredients that can have serious side effects. That’s why the FDA does not allow manufacturers to make unqualified safety claims. Furthermore, if a company uses ingredients in novel combinations, then it can’t be assumed that the safety profile is the same as when the ingredients are taken individually. This is particularly relevant to Protandim, since LFVN claims that the ingredients display unique “synergistic” properties. In that light, the safety of Protandim is even more uncertain. The FDA states:

"Where there is reason to suspect that the combination of multiple ingredients might result in interactions that would alter the effect or safety of the individual ingredients, studies showing the effect of the individual ingredients may be insufficient to substantiate the safety of the multiple ingredient product. A better approach would be to investigate the safety of the specific combination of ingredients contained in the product."

To make matters worse, LFVN even acknowledges in their FAQs that Protandim can cause side effects (allergic responses, stomach ache, diarrhea, vomiting, headache, and rash of the hands and feet). Obviously, it’s not entirely safe and they shouldn't be deceiving consumers to the contrary.

Originally posted 2011-09-02 16:38:47.

This post involves:

LiveVantage Lies

... and focuses on:

Protandim safety

Recently, Donny Osmond was a guest on Dr. Phil. I was watching this closely as those with connections to LifeVantage said that the company promoted this appearance at their annual get-together. I was prepared for a mention of Protandim. Here's how it went down with the YouTube Video to follow:

Donny Osmond: Non-stop energy.
Dr. Phil: I can not even imagine. For example last night, you did a show last night, that was 90 minutes starting at 7:30, then you went through that, then you came here, you're here this morning.

Donny Osmond: That's right...
Dr. Phil: Doing all this...

Donny Osmond: It's non-stop. I don't sleep anymore. (Laughs)
Dr. Phil: So where do you get the energy. Seriously, I mean look at you. We've known each other a long time. You don't ever get older.

Donny Osmond: Well thank you. It's quick funny because people are kind of shocked when they hear that I'm 54 years old and they say, "How do you keep your youth?" I have found something Dr. Phil that I think is the closest thing to the Fountain of Youth.

Dr. Phil: Oh you do have a secret?
Donny Osmond: I have a secret and I've never really talked about it. I've been doing this for the last two years. It's called Protandim and it works and I'm telling everybody about this.

Dr. Phil: You feel differently.
Donny Osmond: I do.

Dr. Phil: Because you are running around like a chicken with your head cut off.

The video goes on from there, but it isn't relevant to Protandim in any way. It's worth watching just to get the full context of the exchange:

There are several concerning things by this video. If you read the title, you know the one that I'm most concerned about. However, before I get to that one, I'd like to address the others.

• Protandim Being Compared to a Fountain of Youth - This is completely irresponsible, especially coming from a paid company spokesman like Donny Osmond.
• "It Works" - This is the kind of marketing that MonaVie distributors have been making for years in the comments here. In the case of Protandim which isn't intended to make someone be younger, look younger, nor treat, prevent, or cure any disease... these companies can only make vague statements like these in hopes of misleading consumers to think, "Hey, I've got [fill in the blank condition] and could use anything that "works."
• Dr. Phil's "We've known each other a long time." - Now we know why he let Donny Osmond endorse a product he's paid to endorse without adhering to the FTC guidelines (see below).
• Donny's "I've been doing this for the last two years." - This is proof positive that Protandim hasn't made him any younger. Even according to Dr. Phil, "You don't ever get older." It is classic question, which came first the chicken or the egg. In this case we know what came first. Donny Osmond has looked young for a long time (my wife notes his obvious plastic surgery) and he got a contract with LifeVantage because of it. The cause of the LifeVantage contract was that Donny Osmond, it was not a case where he looks young due to Protandim. This is another case where LifeVantage misleads consumers.
• Donny's statement of "I have a secret and I've never really talked about it." - Really? Since he became the spokesman for Protandim he's talked about several times. The only thing that's a secret is that he's a paid spokesman and isn't disclosing it.

And that last point segues to the biggest point Donny Osmond and LifeVantage are not heading to the FTC guidelines for celebrity endorsements. Here's a quote from the FTC:

Celebrity endorsers also are addressed in the revised Guides. While the 1980 Guides did not explicitly state that endorsers as well as advertisers could be liable under the FTC Act for statements they make in an endorsement, the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement – or for failure to disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers. The revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media.

I've bolded the last sentence for effect. It specifically addresses this case of Donny Osmond not disclosing his relationship with LifeVantage on a talk show. The average Dr. Phil viewer would not be aware of LifeVantage hiring Donny Osmond to be its spokesman and this is clearly a deceptive advertisement as defined by the FTC.

The FTC goes into it more detail, in their official guidelines... specifically in section 255.5 under Example 3:

"Example 3: During an appearance by a well-known professional tennis player on a television talk show, the host comments that the past few months have been the best of her career and during this time she has risen to her highest level ever in the rankings. She responds by attributing the improvement in her game to the fact that she is seeing the ball better than she used to, ever since having laser vision correction surgery at a clinic that she identifies by name. She continues talking about the ease of the procedure, the kindness of the clinic’s doctors, her speedy recovery, and how she can now engage in a variety of activities without glasses, including driving at night. The athlete does not disclose that, even though she does not appear in commercials for the clinic, she has a contractual relationship with it, and her contract pays her for speaking publicly about her surgery when she can do so. Consumers might not realize that a celebrity discussing a medical procedure in a television interview has been paid for doing so, and knowledge of such payments would likely affect the weight or credibility consumers give to the celebrity’s endorsement. Without a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the athlete has been engaged as a spokesperson for the clinic, this endorsement is likely to be deceptive. Furthermore, if consumers are likely to take away from her story that her experience was typical of those who undergo the same procedure at the clinic, the advertiser must have substantiation for
that claim."

I wish my crystal ball was as functional as the FTC's because they saw this coming a mile away. It is similar in many ways. The big difference is that laser vision correction surgery is FDA approved and "Protandim as a Fountain of Youth" is, well, the exact opposite. We still have the celebrity endorser not disclosing the paid relationship with the company. As the FTC points out this endorsement is likely to be deceptive (the FTC was erring on the side of caution, it IS deceptive.)

I think one could make a case that consumers are likely to take away that Donny Osmond is a typical example of a Protandim taker and clearly the advertiser, LifeVantage, can not substantiate the "closest thing to the Fountain of Youth" claim.

Originally posted 2012-02-09 05:17:46.

This post involves:

Uncategorized

... and focuses on:

Dr. Harriet Hall has written about Protandim again. I had covered her last writing here: Dr. Harriet Hall on LifeVantage Protandim. That article covered how there were a lack of clinical trials and that there is POEMS: Patient Oriented Evidence that Matters.

So what does Harriet Hall have to say now? She analyzes the second human trial... making note that it doesn't qualify as a clinical trial. She points out that it isn't listed on LifeVantage's website and "coincidentally" the research shows that Protandim didn't work.

Dr. Hall covers a lot of technical detail, but the important details are summed up in these paragraphs:

"To recap their chain of reasoning: alcoholics might develop lung disease, that lung disease might be correlated with abnormal epithelial permeability, protein levels measured by bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) might be a valid measure of permeability, permeability might be affected by underlying oxidative stress, and Protandim might reduce oxidative stress by stimulating the body to produce its own antioxidants. Do they perhaps think that lots of “mights” add up to a “mighty” argument?

Why would they want to study this particular mixture of 5 herbs? The second listed author, Joe McCord, has a vested interest: he is an officer of the LifeVantage company, the manufacturer of Protandim. They explain that Protandim is “a nutraceutical with a lengthy history of use in homeopathic, Ayurvedic, and traditional Chinese medicine.” An interesting statement, since Protandim was invented only a few years ago by a person with no medical background and it was patented in 2007. Doubly interesting since it belies the common myth that natural medicines are not profitable because they can’t be patented.

How many Protandim customers are alcoholics taking it for lung injury due to alcohol abuse? I would guess not many. Why on earth would they pick an esoteric detail like this to study and why would they look at Protandim’s influence on lab tests instead of looking for a useful clinical benefit?"

...

I really don’t get it. Why did they do this study? Why did they use twice the recommended dose? What was the IRB thinking? Why didn’t they study something with a useful clinical endpoint? As an e-mail correspondent said, 'They make claims about diabetics being able to go off of insulin or reduce insulin... why not do a trial on that?' That’s an excellent point: a diabetes trial would not involve invasive procedures and would be far easier to carry out and far more meaningful. When advocates do esoteric, convoluted laboratory studies instead of straightforward simple clinical trials, it raises the suspicion that they believe at some level that such clinical trials wouldn’t help their case.

No, on second thought, I think I do get it: they want to prove, by any means possible, no matter how circuitous or far-fetched, that Protandim does something, anything, antioxidantish (not a word? Well it is now!).

One thing that I like about Dr. Hall is that she boils it down to a level that the average person can understand. You don't need to understand the study. She explained it in enough detail that you can see that it doesn't make sense. The conclusion supports what this website, and Protandim inventor Paul Myhill has claimed long ago: Paul Myhill, Inventor of Protandim, Admits Protandim's Science is for Marketing.

When will LifeVantage answer Dr. Harriet Hall's questions? My guess is that they never will. Why? They have no answers and Dr. Harriet Hall is right.

Originally posted 2012-04-10 04:48:52.

This post involves:

Protandim Marketing, Protandim Studies

... and focuses on:

Dr Harriet Hall

Many Protandim distributors point to a study published in American Heart Association's Circulation as proof that the American Heart Association (AHA) says that Protandim works.

If you don't read the study and just see the words "Protandim", "American Heart Association", and "Circulation journal" it would be easy to come to that conclusion. However, if you read the study, you are likely to come up with a lot more questions than answers. I've put them in a FAQ form:

Q: Did they study Protandim?

A: No, the study was Right Heart Failure and Chronic Pulmonary Artery Pressure Elevation. The background and the conclusion of the study do not mention Protandim in any way.

Q: The study was done on humans, right?

A: Not it was done on rats, kind of. The quote that got my attention was "A mechanical animal model..."

Q: Was Protandim used in the study

A: Not entirely. If you read the study, an "alcohol-based extract of Protandim" was used. LifeVantage does not sell an alcohol-based extract of Protandim.

Q: The rats ate the Protandim just like a human would, right?
A: No, they had it injected in them (see intraperitoneally). LifeVantage does not seem to sell an injectable form of Protandim. I can find nothing on LifeVantage's website this being a typical delivery method of the product.

Q: The amount of Protandim that was used was similar to what a human would consume, right?
A: Nope. Friend of ProtandimScams, Vogel, explains it best here:

"The rats in the study weighed 200 grams. Protandim was first extracted in ethanol and then 25 mg of the ethanol extract was injected into the abdomen. In medicine, dosing calculations for humans are based on a presumed average body weight of 70 kg. The normal 'dose' of Protandim for humans is one 675 mg capsule (so the dose is 675 mg per 70 kg body weight or roughly 9.64 mg/kg). The rats in the Protandim study received 25 mg per 200 g bodyweight -- this corresponds to a dose of 125 mg/kg.

In other words, the dose that the rats received in this study was roughly 13 times higher than what humans would take. Compounding the dosage problem is the fact that (a) an ethanol extract was used, which would be more potent than taking it in non-extracted form, and (b) it was directly injected into the abdomen which would greatly increase bioavailability as compared to oral ingestion and would result in an even greater dosage inequity. Thus, this study was poorly conceived and is utterly irrelevant to humans. In order to ingest a comparable dose to what the rats in this study received, a person would have to consume about a full bottle (30 capsules at $50) of Protandim per day."

Recap: The study's purpose was unrelated to Protandim. It didn't use Protandim in the form of it intended use. It didn't involve Protandim's intended audience. The form of Protandim wasn't delivered how the intended audience is supposed to use it. The amount of Protandim was many, many times the suggested amount for its intended audience.

The only conclusion one can make is that this study has zero relevance to its intended audience - humans. It is much more important to focus on Originally posted 2012-03-10 18:44:53.

This post involves:

Protandim Studies

... and focuses on:

AHA, American Heart Association, Circulation

 |   Stumble |   Reddit |   Digg |   Del.icio.us | 

I recently came across a magazine in which LifeVantage's leading scientific advisor Joe McCord is pitching Protandim as a product that helps prevent cancer.

The magazine, Prosper, is essentially an infomercial for hire. The business model is to create a publication for MLMs, so that distributors have something to give prospective distributors. There is a clear partnership between LifeVantage and the producers of the magazine. One of the things that stands out about the magazine are profiles of something like 50 distributors, where we learn the top LifeVantage distributor came from Zrii which lead to a lawsuit between Zrii and LifeVantage.

Back to the magazine. In it, there is an article that quotes Joe McCord:

Author Natalie Hollingshead: "While several of the seven peer-reviewed studies done on Protandim show the supplement’s potential to reverse age-related conditions, the main focus is on prevention."

McCord: "It’s all about prevention. All of those diseases I named are very difficult to treat. For instance, every cancer has multiple mutations that are in any of thousands of different sites. Every cancer is very unique and that is why it is very hard to cure. Prevention is much easier to bring about than a cure."

Here is the whole article, but you can see the illegal claim on page 2:

Page 1
Page 2

This is a clear violation of the FDA laws regarding the marketing of dietary supplements as drugs. See Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). DSHEA is quite clear that you can't get away claims that even imply such things.

Later on in the magazine (page 11) there is a disclaimer that says, "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease." This is requirement for dietary supplements. However, those exact words contradict what McCord is claiming in the article.

It looks like LifeVantage has decided that it will gamble with the fact that FDA won't ever look at the magazine since it is only intended to be being distributed to prospective LifeVantage distributors.

Originally posted 2012-02-25 01:56:25.

This post involves:

Illegal LifeVantage Actions, Joe McCord

... and focuses on:

When you join an MLM, they often tout the successful distributors. LifeVantage is no different. I was able to obtain a copy of Prosper Magazine Volume 3, issue 6, which is a magazine that companies like LifeVantage commissions for marketing purposes.

The magazine features 30 pages of distributor profiles. Here are some of the people mentioned in the first 8 pages (each getting a two page spread): Marcell Niederhauser, Tyler Daniels, Jason Domingo, and Marc Shinsato. Out of curiosity, I did a search on one of them and I found something really interesting at MLM Watchdog about Zrii:

"From: Zrii Corporate [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 4:21 PM
To:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Call Anouncement From Mr. Farley
Dear Zrii Independent Executives, Bill will be hosting a nationwide call tonight with all Zrii Distributors.
7pm Pacific Time Call in number: 507 726-3444 Access Code: 45259#

24/7 Recorded Playback <<<<<<<<< 712-432-7690
Access Code 98765#
Recording No. 020509#

Please join us for this most important call. This call will be recorded and available for playback.
I want you to know that Kirby Zenger and several of our executives have resigned. I have also terminated as Distributors: Jason Domingo, Tyler Daniels, Marcell Niederhouser, Seth Mulder, Marc Shinsato, Dr. Robert Gonzales, and Dr. Andreas Boettcher. These individuals no longer can speak for Zrii. I will update you on the call tonight."

I highlighted the relevant names (including the previously mentioned Kirby Zenger)

What's the point of highlighting these people? It is pretty clear to me that they didn't become successful at LifeVantage through hard work of showing the compensation plan. It seems to me that they've just moved their downline over after getting fired by Zrii.

It gets even more interesting.

From this court document:

"On March 2, LifeVantage opened a new Utah office staffed overwhelmingly with former Zrii employees. Indeed, all of the forty-five to fifty LifeVantage corporate employees, except one, are former Zrii employees."

Why do I point this out? There are a couple of reasons.

• LifeVantage doesn't mention that these people created their downlines by showing the Zrii compensation plan. If you are a distributor looking to join LifeVantage and emulate the success of these people, you best have a time machine so that you can get the invite to be brought in during the pre-release phase of LifeVantage back in early February 2009.
• A couple of years ago, the same set of people were full believers in Zrii and pitching how great that product was. They got upset with how it was run (according to the court documents) and moved to LifeVantage. The juice salesmen became pill salesmen, because it paid better. Who is to say in another two years they won't move on to a weight-loss product or back to juice? There's no allegiance to the product as long as they can make a convincing argument to sell it.

Originally posted 2011-12-30 00:52:09.

This post involves:

LifeVantage and Zrii

... and focuses on:

LifeVantage and its Protandim distributors make a big mention about searching PubMed.gov for Protandim. Why? Well, because that is the system that they've chosen to exploit. And that's why Paul Myhill, Inventor of Protandim, admitted that it was for marketing purposes.

It is worth asking the question of, "Where are the clinical studies?" The product has been around 6 years and the studies aren't there. Using LifeVantage's own logic go to ClinicalTrials.gov and search for Protandim (or just click that link).

Two of the studies were on alcoholism, which is something that unrelated to any of the thousand of claims I've seen on Protandim. Both of them are appear to be from Dr. McCord's home-base of University of Colorado, which has clear ties to Joe McCord. One of the studies has a status of "Enrolling by invitation", but it was supposed to have been completed earlier this year. The other one on this topic is a status of unknown and it was supposed to have been completed a year and a half ago (summer of 2010).

other clinical trial attempted was on "Protandim and the Metabolic Syndrome" and that has been withdrawn. Seems like the results weren't what LifeVantage, listed as a collaborator, was looking for.

This speaks volumes about how irrelevant Protandim is with scientists. The three "current" clinical trials have/had ties to LifeVantage. More importantly none of them seem active.

Update: There are some great comments and clarifications in the comments by Vogel.

Originally posted 2011-12-22 01:30:02.

This post involves:

Protandim Studies

... and focuses on:

Clinical Trials