One of the common myths surrounding Protandim is that it was developed by a doctor. It couldn't be more distant from the truth. It turns out that Paul Myhill invented Protandim. Here's the patent filed on March 23, 2005 with his name as the primary inventor.
It's worth noting that Paul Myhill has no background in medicine. Here is his LinkedIn page. I see theological study and business school, but nothing related to medicine.
If this seems odd it should. It is even odd to Paul Myhill. In an interview with Blogtalk radio, Paul Myhill, explains his invention of Protandim as well as the corporate cover-up of using Dr. McCord as a marketing tool. 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.
What do I take away from this? I'll answer that question with a question. What if I told you that an African tribesman whose tribe was isolated from civilization for hundreds of years got plucked and put in a microchip lab at Intel and created a revolutionary chip with only some leaves, dirt, and bamboo. Would you'd believe it? Wouldn't you be skeptical at all? If you missed the analogy here goes... Paul Myhill is the isolated tribesman with no experience or training and the leaves, dirt, and bamboo are the common herbs in Protandim.
A potential Protandim consumer should be wary of products claiming to have medical merit from someone with no medical background. They should also think twice about trusting a company that has admitted to lying to consumers.
Originally posted 2011-05-14 21:05:58.
This post involves:Protandim History
... and focuses on:Paul Myhill, Protandim
Stumble
Reddit
Digg
Del.icio.usNext: Protandim, Miracle Claims, Scientific Breakthroughs, and the FTC
May 14th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
[...] Protandim Scams Skip to content HomeSample Page ← Protandim Inventor Paul Myhill has No Medical Background [...]
May 21st, 2011 at 7:49 pm
[...] Protandim was invented by Paul Myhill who has no medical background. According to his LinkedIn page his background is in theology and business. Kind of odd that someone without any kind of science of chemistry/pharmacy background would be able to create a pill that is marketed by some as a Fountain of Youth, right? [...]
June 4th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
[...] can be seen as a follow up post to the one here: Protandim Inventor Paul Myhill has No Medical Background. In an interview with Blogtalk radio, he says: “I believe LifeVantage’s current science [...]
June 19th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
[...] 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. [...]
August 11th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
“A potential Protandim consumer should be weary of products claiming to have medical merit from someone with no medical background.”
In this blog, you repeatedly assert that the inventor’s lack of background in medicine somehow invalidates the product. If that is a reliable rule by which to judge advancements, it would follow that the Wright brother’s lack of background in aviation invalidates the airplane, correct?
More to the point in this discussion is your own background. If you do not have a medical background, then (using your own “logic”) you are not qualified to criticize.
And inquiring minds want to know – since when is dirt an herb?
August 11th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Are you saying that I am wrong to suggest that people should be weary of products claiming to have medical merit created by someone without a medical background? I don’t know about you, but this fits into the realm of common sense. I shouldn’t even have to say it. I don’t want my plumber making my medicine. Perhaps you do.
I don’t assert that lack of background in medicine invalidates the product, but it does give very powerful evidence that the product is invalid. An airplane is easily validated by observing. Medicine is usually (perhaps 100% of the time, can you think of an exception?) validated by large-scale placebo controlled clinical trials. We have validated airplanes millions of times. Protandim has never been validated.
It’s worth noting that the Wright brothers did have a background in mechanics which was directly adaptable to the airplane: “They gained the mechanical skills essential for their success by working for years in their shop with printing presses, bicycles, motors, and other machinery. Their work with bicycles in particular influenced their belief that an unstable vehicle like a flying machine could be controlled and balanced with practice.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Brothers] In a lot of ways the Wright brothers created the field of aviation. Are you going to claim that Paul Myhill created the field of supplements or medicine?
It’s worth noting that Paul Myhill didn’t invent anything “new” any more than Betty Crooker and Chef Boyardee did. All three took very common products not proven to have any medicinal benefit and combine them. I can reach into my spice rack and do the same thing. I read cinnamon had a really high ORAC score. I think it would quite well in a TBARS test.
Why does one need a medical background to criticize. There’s a difference between creating an iPhone and using one. I couldn’t create one – I don’t have the engineering background. I can criticize it’s feature set though. I’m not a home inspector… I don’t have the knowledge for it. However, I can tell when a house is falling apart. Make sense?
Finally, I never said that dirt was a herb. I said that it would be ridiculous to think some could make an Intel chip from dirt, bamboo, and leaves. This is similar how it would be ridiculous to expect one to make medicine from things that weren’t previously proven to have medicinal effects.
September 8th, 2011 at 2:53 am
[...] 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 [...]
September 10th, 2011 at 9:43 am
Which is why Paul Myhill turned to Dr. McCord to validate Protandim because of his lack of a medical background. Dr. McCord has done that, not Paul Myhill, which is why Lifevantage would want to use Dr. McCord (whose credentials are vast) in their marketing and when discussing the science behind Protandim. Because again it’s Dr. McCord not Paul Myhill who continues to research the effects of Protandim and publishes research papers on his findings.
September 10th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Are you suggesting that McCord just validated Myhill’s work? Didn’t alter the formula in any way? If so, then we still have a product that wasn’t invented by a person with any kind of scientific background, that was validated by a person who was given 10% of the Lifeline/LifeVantage worth millions. That kind of money in exchange for “validation” is a huge conflict of interest and a wise consumer would place no value on it.
If McCord did alter Myhill’s formula instead of just validating it, then McCord would appear on the patent.
What’s left out of this story is the first Protandim – CMX-1152 that Lifeline had agreed to license from Ceremedix. When the deal fell through, Lifeline had to come up with another solution quickly. There wouldn’t have been time to come up with something like CMX-1152, so the next best thing would be to turn to herbs that are readily available. I had more than half the ingredients in my house before I even heard of Protandim. Of course, just picking ingredients off the shelf isn’t likely to sell – anyone can do that. Instead, they offer to throw a bag of a few million dollars at McCord to use his reputation and lie that McCord invented Protandim.
LifeVantage’s clever trick of using Joe McCord for his marketing has already been outed. They can’t go back and revise history and say, “McCord really did play a valuable role” when it has been shown he didn’t.
September 26th, 2011 at 2:03 am
I would like to know where your CREDIBLE sources are.
SO, the Patent link was FILED in 2005, huh?
TWO problems – Dr. McCord discovered the Protandim complex in 1985, not 2005
AND it says the patent was FILED, not GRANTED. SO he’s either trying to make money like an idiot who does not understand how patent filing works or he’s a super idiot hoping to discredit Dr. McCord by shouting, “I did it!” when Dr. McCord has second party validation with Dr. Fredovich at the creation of this complex in 1985 NOT 2005 or anywhere near there.
Have you even looked into Protandim. They have like 7 patents, 10+ universities & colleges across the U.S. SELF FUNDING research on Protandim. USUALLY when a “medical breakthrough” is discovered the scientist that has made the discovery has to take his discovery around to colleges and PAY THEM to do the studies NOT the other way around. Do your leg work and find out the truth before you spout middle school gossip
September 26th, 2011 at 2:37 am
YES, originally ProT (my short hand for Protandim) was marketed as the “anti-aging miracle” I personally don’t really buy that, I think God created our bodies to age, period! BUT I do think that reducing oxidative stress has been PROVEN to cure or at least alleviate MANY ailments. The science is there, the research is there, just gotta find it through all the nay sayers, & people who have an opinion on everything without research. ProT has TONS of stuff on the research, science, patents etc. if you are interested. This Paul Myhill guy is ridiculous, I can’t believe anyone would believe that! C’mon really? Blogtalk? vs. ABC, NBC, PBS, New York Times, etc. As soon as a guy says, “no really, I created ProT and then gave up the millions of dollars and fame I coulda had if I hadn’t lied and given my ideas to someone else.” you really have to wonder! AND he’s about 20 years too late to be making these claims. In 2005, YEARS after ProT had been on the shelf in GNC (& going nowhere b/c no one knew what it was). ABC did a DATELINE Investigative Report on ProT (it’s really very good) and then magically Paul Myhill remembers he created this stuff, files for a patent and goes on an unaccredited radio show to “prove” he’s the true genius? Sounds like a great movie, not real life.
September 28th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
The credible sources are listed in the article.
There’s no source that Protandim was invented in 1985. In fact, we know that Protandim was actually a different product all together – CMX-1152 that LifeVantage wasn’t able to bring to market.
Amanda, have you looked into Protandim or LifeVantage? LifeVantage, Paul Myhill, and Joe McCord don’t dispute these facts. You are the only one who seems to pull this 1985 date from nowhere with no source. You are spreading the middle school gossip, while I have legit third party sources that LifeVantage themselves have confirmed.
September 28th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Amanda/Lanie,
You did click on the link and see that the Lifeline (LifeVantage before they changed their name) was assigned to the patent with Paul Myhill as the inventor. You can read the patent in detail and it details the exact proportions of what is in Protandim today. No one at LifeVantage argues these facts. There are no ABC, NBC, PBS, or New York times articles that say any differently. The fact that you just put out a bunch of names with no links show that you are just making this up.
You realize that the herbal form Protandim wasn’t created until February, 2005. Here is the full story: http://classic.the-scientist.com/2006/3/1/33/1/
ABC Primetime (not Dateline) did a report in June 2005 – 3 months AFTER Paul Myhill filed the patent with the blessing of LifeVantage. He didn’t remember he invented it – he actually did that LifeVantage agrees.
Update: Oops just noticed that Amanda and Lanie are actually the same person trying to pose as different people. It makes sense since she is the only person who doesn’t believe that Paul Myhill created Protandim.
October 2nd, 2011 at 4:42 am
the original intent was to provide an available supplement that that could increase the endogenous production of Super Oxide Dismutase. Period. The di-peptide formulation patented as CMX 1152 showed promise and yet a number of results in clinical animal studies were more than statiscally significant so as to pose a potential
problem for the company to offer a supplement which incuded CMX 1152 under DSHEA requirements. The Company wisely chose to offer an herbal blend which produced fantastic results in human clinical studies with respect to significant improvement in the reduction in measurable oxidative stress. You’ve got to give the Company a little credit for offering one of the best products available today.
October 4th, 2011 at 4:18 am
They could have easily launched CMX-1152 if it was effective. It might have been classified as a supplement, but it still could have been launched. If you can prove a product is helpful and doesn’t have dangerous side effects the FDA has no problems with it.
The herbal version of Protandim only had one small clinical study where many of the people dropped out. It certainly didn’t have fantastic results in any aspect.
The company deserves no credit for an product that hasn’t been shown to do anything for anyone.
October 7th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
I see you continue to spout off which is your right. However if you take note, none of us are afraid to say who we are, instrutive citique is a good thing. I read your excuse for not sending me a reply with the word remove in the subject line. Stand up be a man be counted. It is one thing to spout off and declare who you are because last time I checked free speech was not a crime, it is quite another to hide in the dark and do that. If what you say is factual then declare yourself and we can have a great open debate without critisism
October 8th, 2011 at 12:05 am
Hi Peter. You’re welcome to have an open debate with me any time. What should we start with?
October 8th, 2011 at 12:26 am
Thanks for your concern Peter Davidson.
My life has been threatened by those involved in MLM. No one wants to see a homicide over such silliness. I don’t want to be dead and you don’t want to have the company shut down due to one lunatic bringing the media circus into the front page of the news papers.
This is the best situation for all and it is quite common for corporate whistle-blowers.
November 21st, 2011 at 5:23 pm
[...] Protandim’s inventor, Paul Myhill has no medical background at all. [...]
December 31st, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Is the use of the word “weary” what you intend? “Wary” or “leery” make sense – but weary?
December 31st, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Hmmm, Dana, are you trying to tell me that I’m can’t take the poetic license to invent words like others did with “fantabulous?”
Thanks for pointing it out, I’ll go with wary.
February 16th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
The inventor of something is the person who comes up with the idea. Myhill came up with the idea of Protandim and then proceeded to approach Dr. McCord to FORMULATE the product because he didn’t have any idea how to do it. Therefore, McCord along with the staff at the university he was working at formulated Protandim and did trials with it. you need to know the difference between inventor and formulator. its clear McCord made protandim.
February 17th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
I just got back from the Vegas Protandim convention where I had time to meet DOZENS of people whose lives have been changed by Protandim. Amazing stories that went on and on with very real people. Empirical evidence is strong with this product, and I seriously doubt that all of these people are just having “placebo” effects. While you’re spending all your time yelling about the evils of Protandim and the company, MANY people’s lives are being changed for the better, physically, psychologically and financially. Bottom line, the company knew they were on to something great, things didn’t work out exactly as planned, they already had a ton of money invested which they didn’t want to lose (who the hell can blame them?)so they scrambled to tie up some loose ends to get it on track. They’re not perfect, get over it. I’m sure we could dig up dirt on every company in the world if we wanted to, but what would be the point? If something is working for you (as this business AND product is for thousands of people) who really cares how they got there? Tons of people are getting great results from it and time will tell how great (or not) it really is.
And for all the good it’s done, our government has also approved tons of products over the years that have harmed, killed and ruined peoples lives, so your advice of “waiting for it to be FDA approved” is a joke. Thanks for the warning, pal, but while you’re working your own private agenda trying to scare people off, I’ll be busy getting healthier and rich…Muhahahahaha!
February 25th, 2012 at 2:22 am
Michael, this doesn’t seem to be the case.
Also, LifeVantage filed reports with the SEC that clearly imply that McCord was hired to market the product
If it is clear that McCord was involved in formulating and/or inventing Protandim why isn’t McCord listed on the patent at all? If McCord was significantly involved in formulating it with Myhill, we’d see it in the patent:
http://static.protandimscams.com/documents/7241461_Compositions_for_alleviating_inf.pdf
It is clear that McCord had nothing to do with do with Protandim and was a spokesman as described here.
February 26th, 2012 at 2:06 am
Roy,
The placebo effect works on a percentage of people, not a flat number. It’s been shown to be around the 30% of people who try it: (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo). If everyone in America tried a sugar pill, you’d have 100 million people claiming it had helped them through a placebo effect.
Perhaps you want to rethink the “DOZENS of people” as being significant, when I just showed how a 100 million people would support a product that was PROVEN not to work.
Also, take a look at any other MLM health product and you’ll find these “amazing stories.” They’ll all claim the better health.
They’ll also claim it helped them financially, because they have to. They make money buy recruiting others into the scheme, and no one is going to join if people are claiming that they lose money. LifeVantage hasn’t published an income disclosure statement. If people were making money, they would as it would be a good sales tool. Conclusion: People are not making good money being LifeVantage distributors.
It seems like your whole argument is that the product works in some way. However, LifeVantage itself doesn’t believe it because they haven’t even filed the paperwork with the FDA to show that it works better than a placebo with any condition. This is a simple test that would prove the product works and make LifeVantage billions. They refuse to do it. The only explanation is that they know it doesn’t work.
Roy, please don’t play the Health MLM Mind Game: The FDA Approves Drugs with Side Effects that Kill People. It’s an old tired excuse that doesn’t make sense.
March 7th, 2012 at 3:03 am
Could it be that Paul Myhill actually put together a group of herbs that actually are helping people? I have two ‘close family members’ getting involved in this MLM. One is telling me of several ways that it is helping her. I went to Pubmed and did a search on TBARS and one of the articles was on bacopa. Much research has been done on this along with turmeric and ashwagandha. Could Myhill have searched for the rusults he wanted and returned the set of herbs used in Protandim? Maybe they won’t extend life, but maybe they are doing something. So, the distributors feel better and believe in the product and then tell you to watch an outdated video with no follow up and nobody has to make a claim of Prodtandim’s efficacy. Maybe it does something, just not what they are trying to lead you to think it does.
March 7th, 2012 at 6:23 am
Thanks for the posts,I am new to all network marketing,still a college student looking for extra income. These posts have helped my understanding of what is really going on in the marketing world today. I was invited to watch the demonstration of this product today. Tomorrow afternoon I will see what the dealer has to say. I am glad I have researched as many testimonies and reviews as possible.This will help protect me from an investment that I do not want to be apart of. I appreciate both sides for their input.
March 10th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Larry,
The best explanation is the placebo effect. Here’s a Wikipedia article explaining why we need placebo controlled studies before we know if Protandim helps people.
It’s also worth noting that TBars is an unreliable test of oxidative stress.
If Protandim did do something to help people, why wouldn’t LifeVantage do the necessary placebo-controlled tests to get FDA approval so that they can make billions marketing a cure to people afflicted with these conditions? Are you telling me that LifeVantage wouldn’t want to make billions? Or is that they don’t want to help people afflicted with these conditions? The only other reasonable solution is that they know their product doesn’t work and are relying on the placebo effect.
March 10th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Thanks Dan, glad to help.
I’d love to hear what kind of demonstration of the product they are doing. It’s someone swallowing a pill right? How do you demonstrate the efficacy of something like that?
You shouldn’t waste your time on testimonials. Here are some good examples why.
March 11th, 2012 at 2:37 am
Haha, its exactly that,them swallowing a pill and their abc live it video. What was funny is the person trying to get me to buy his sales pack had only been taking the product for about a week, and he joined life vantage that same week. Too many people are blinded by whats really happening.
April 20th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
[...] the inventor of Protandim, Paul Myhill calls out LifeVantage for perpetuating an ongoing fraud – one that the SEC and FTC should be made [...]