# MLM Pre-Launch in AU



## lundgren (Apr 4, 2011)

(removed content on request of the manufacturer)


----------



## smith360 (Mar 28, 2011)

With its breakthrough product and technology in the nutritional field, it’s about ready to take MLM by surprise as they display their HelixP51 nutritional product, which actually repairs and restores your actual DNA.


----------



## ChristineSutherland (May 14, 2010)

*Spotting Scams*

Some very good people have been sucked in to LifeVantage, simply because they are untrained in how to assess so-called scientific evidence.

There is zero validated evidence that this product has any effect, let alone any positive effect, on gene function.

As a clinical researcher I can tell you that when this type of claim is real (and there are certainly cases where it is) every major university in the world flocks to collaborate on further research, and it gets peer reviewed and published in the most prestigious science magazines and journals.

Proper genetic research requires teams of experts across a vast array of specialties, such is the complexity of the work. It is also incredibly expensive, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in gene chips alone.

Genetic research is completely outside the capacity of any individual, and in particular outside the capacity of untrained individuals. Formulations which impact positively and specifically on groups of genes are not something that you simply mix up in a bathtub or test tube.

I also know that there is only 1 laboratory on the planet that can reliably map gene expression genome-wide, because they invented the technology and patented it, and make it available in a limited way by license only.

There have been genuine advances in genetic science since 2003, and especially since 2008 when the genome project was comprehensively completed. The claims by LifeVantage do a disservice not only to the whole field of genetics, but to the MLM sector generally.


----------



## lundgren (Apr 4, 2011)

> There is zero validated evidence that this product has any effect, let alone any positive effect, on gene function.


You must have missed the peer reviewed studies, dozens of independent researchers and medical and scientific journals that published this research. To say there is zero validated evidence is very misleading. At best you can say its not enough evidence. Id venture there is more scientific validated evidence in just about any supplement I know of, juice or most health and wellness products out there. We know Protandim activates Nrf2, we know that Nrf2 has a big affect on gene function. Both those statements are validated by peer review.



> As a clinical researcher I can tell you that when this type of claim is real (and there are certainly cases where it is) every major university in the world flocks to collaborate on further research, and it gets peer reviewed and published in the most prestigious science magazines and journals.


It has been., the American Heart Association, Free Radical Biology and Medicine. There will be more, when bigger studies come out (there are many pending). As you know it takes years for studies to be done, and often several months for peer review, if not longer. Some of the researchers involved on Protandim studies are very respected and well known, not including McCord:



> There have been genuine advances in genetic science since 2003, and especially since 2008 when the genome project was comprehensively completed. The claims by LifeVantage do a disservice not only to the whole field of genetics, but to the MLM sector generally.


The claims have nothing to do with MLM, most of these claims came outside MLM or even before Protandim was sold through MLM. Claims about gene expression are peer reviewed. Protandim isn't more than it claims, but it is extremely significant.


----------



## lundgren (Apr 4, 2011)

Helix P51 is not a LifeVantage product, its made by another company. This product also has no peer review at all. See the difference?


----------



## ChristineSutherland (May 14, 2010)

This is part of the problem. There are thousands of journals and magazines that can be called "scientific". The lower quality or lesser credibility the journal has, the weaker the peer review process.

Such journals are frequently full of incredibly flawed research.

Making a statement like "Nrf2 has a big affect on gene function" is meaningless. There are some 6,500 genes whose function deteriorates via up regulation or down regulation as we age.

The term "gene expression" refers to the degree to which the characteristics of the gene are activated, and blindly up regulating or down regulating a gene is like rolling a dice.

The research referred to is quite primitive in comparison to what is happening in the field of genetics generally and is in no way a justification for commercialisation. That is just greedy opportunism.


----------



## lundgren (Apr 4, 2011)

ChristineSutherland said:


> This is part of the problem. There are thousands of journals and magazines that can be called "scientific". The lower quality or lesser credibility the journal has, the weaker the peer review process.
> 
> Such journals are frequently full of incredibly flawed research.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree there are different quality journals., and Protandim has been featured in some across that range, just like many drugs. However, having peer reviewed research at all, is a major leap ahead of most every supplement on the market.

Saying Nrf2 activation is not meaningless.. if we can activate it, we do quite a bit. Nrf2 activation is new science, not limited to Protandim. (Wikipedia "Nrf2")

The big question is does Protandim do that, and if so, that's a big deal. Semantics of using the phrase "gene expression", thus far, all the research suggests it Protandim activates Nrf2, even if that research is new, small scale, it is nonetheless, peer reviewed and published, which as far as I know is extremely rare for any supplement on the market, at all.


----------



## ChristineSutherland (May 14, 2010)

"Gene expression" is not playing semantics. It is the correct term. And "activating" any gene is not necessarily a good thing. 

For instance the arNOX gene triggers production of free radicals and is involved in the aging process. if you activate the arNOX gene you immediately increase production of free radicals.

Genetic technology in relation to health and aging is not about a single gene. It is about hundreds of genes, in clusters, responsible for a variety of functions.

To think that health or aging is about "activating" a single gene, is like looking at the sky through a pinhole and thinking that is the whole sky.

To claim an ability to impact on someone's health through altering expression of a single gene or a single group of genes is absolutely fraudulent. That's why leading scientists will not associate themselves with the marketing of LifeVantage products. They would make themselves look ridiculous amongst their peers who know and understand the true state of the field of genetics.


----------



## lundgren (Apr 4, 2011)

Protandim doesn't change an individual gene or two, or even genes directly, it just releases the Nrf2 protein from Keap-1 to allow it to message the DNA and up-regulate a set of genes. I'm not aware of any research suggesting that Nrf2 activation results in anything harmful, infact just the opposite.

Also Nrf2 doesn't interact with one gene or even a few, Nrf2 communicates with hundreds. Early LifeVantage research measured only 3-4 things, but subsequent research also found it does quite a bit more, in vitro testing with Protandim shows many genes are expressed, and McCord claims its hundreds, not just because of Protandim tests, but because of existing Nrf2 research, that is conducted by many, many researchers.

The question is not "is Nrf2 activation a valid approach to medical treatment" (or prevention). Other drug companies already know this, and are perusing research (See Bg-12 and Bardoxolone methyl).

The question is "does Protandim activate Nrf2", and if so, at what point will the forthcoming studies support the claims of LifeVantage, and support the claims of several researchers to date. For some, they're waiting for more research, for others, like investors and network marketers, they're getting involved now, before the opportunity is gone.


----------



## ChristineSutherland (May 14, 2010)

In other words, Protandim remains completely unvalidated in terms of having any specific health outcomes whatsoever.

But if you want to take a punt, and get in now ...... what a con.



lundgren said:


> Protandim doesn't change an individual gene or two, or even genes directly, it just releases the Nrf2 protein from Keap-1 to allow it to message the DNA and up-regulate a set of genes. I'm not aware of any research suggesting that Nrf2 activation results in anything harmful, infact just the opposite.
> 
> Also Nrf2 doesn't interact with one gene or even a few, Nrf2 communicates with hundreds. Early LifeVantage research measured only 3-4 things, but subsequent research also found it does quite a bit more, in vitro testing with Protandim shows many genes are expressed, and McCord claims its hundreds, not just because of Protandim tests, but because of existing Nrf2 research, that is conducted by many, many researchers.
> 
> ...


----------



## lundgren (Apr 4, 2011)

ChristineSutherland said:


> In other words, Protandim remains completely unvalidated in terms of having any specific health outcomes whatsoever.
> 
> But if you want to take a punt, and get in now ...... what a con.


No, I said it has more peer reviewed science (by far), than any supplement on the market, and has been proven to reduce oxidative stress, inflammation, and also to produce tumor fighting enzymes. Because it is a supplement not a drug, legally health claims cannot be made.

Like all business opportunities, timing is everything, people "punt", all the time.


----------



## ChristineSutherland (May 14, 2010)

This is what makes real scientists laugh and cry at the same time:

_"More peer reviewed science (by far), than any supplement on the market"_? what a complete lie. These sorts of grandiose claims are both ridiculous and offensive.

As for the other claims, I would bet my bottom dollar that the "proven" effects are no different to eating a blueberry, or drinking a cup of tea.

This is just another con job that unfortunately the uninformed public fall for all the time.

Yes, timing is important in business, but so is intelligent due diligence, and this "opportunity" does not pass go.



lundgren said:


> No, I said it has more peer reviewed science (by far), than any supplement on the market, and has been proven to reduce oxidative stress, inflammation, and also to produce tumor fighting enzymes. Because it is a supplement not a drug, legally health claims cannot be made.
> 
> Like all business opportunities, timing is everything, people "punt", all the time.


----------



## lundgren (Apr 4, 2011)

Please name a supplement that has more peer reviewed research than Protandim. That statement is not grandiose, nor ridiculous. It might be offensive to you, but its a true statement.

Actually peer reviewed research shows that eating blueberries or drinking tea do not lower oxidative stress. And actually it shows that those sources of antioxidants, don't work at all, or in many cases make it worse.

The CON is the marketing has taught us that we need to eat our antioxidants. Science has proven that doesn't work, yet people seem to buy that line from companies that say "with antioxidants" on the label, as if it would do anything, and it doesn't.



ChristineSutherland said:


> This is what makes real scientists laugh and cry at the same time:
> 
> _"More peer reviewed science (by far), than any supplement on the market"_? what a complete lie. These sorts of grandiose claims are both ridiculous and offensive.
> 
> ...


----------



## ChristineSutherland (May 14, 2010)

There are many supplements that have thousands of pieces of research behind them.

The scientist who is considered to be the "father of antioxidants" is Dr Lester Packer.

Before you swallow the claims of your company, I suggest you actually read first hand some of this research, including those who've followed in his footsteps.

I repeat: LifeVantage is a con. They have come to market prematurely without any clinical proof whatsoever that any of their products have any positive effect on health.

A wider review of the literature indicates that they will not achieve that proof.


----------



## lundgren (Apr 4, 2011)

"Behind them", and "on them" is a different thing all together.

I asked you to name one, and I didn't see you provide any., which means, Protandim has more peer reviewed research on the product, than any supplement on the market.

And your wrong: Protandim is clinically (with peer review) proven to reduce oxidative stress.

Oh and yes I know of Dr Packer, he says "_There are a lot of issues that my colleagues in antiaging medicine disagree on, but there's one that has near unanimous agreement: Damage from free radicals is at the heart of aging_."

Are you saying Protandim doesn't fight free radicals, or that Dr Packer is lying?



ChristineSutherland said:


> There are many supplements that have thousands of pieces of research behind them.


----------



## ChristineSutherland (May 14, 2010)

Oh dear, that's utterly twisted. I'd delete that one if I were you because you've just shown where you're coming from.


----------

