Sugarmums.com.au – Who’s behind the business?
I received an email recently from a BehindMLM reader asking about the company SugarMums;
Hi there,
I am enjoying your new blog.
I have had an enquiry about Sugar Mums. From what I am aware, they sell vitamins/diet shakes/the whole range of ‘health’ products with apparently some revolutionary ingredient.
Do you have any further information, can you please let me know what it’s all about if possible please?
Not having heard of SugarMums before I hit the net in search of answers;
Here’s what I found.
SugarMums International (operating from sugarmums.com.au) are a co-op of independent associates belonging to an MLM company. Founded by Lucilla and James Howison who operate the business via Infotrigger Systems Pty Ltd. (ABN: 69 080 388 147).
The website sugarmums.com.au has been online since at least May 2008.
Information regarding the SugarMums business opportunity is scarce with websites related to SugarMums providing lots of marketing spin but very little on the opportunity itself.
So which parent MLM company do SugarMums members belong to?
eCelebrate is a company newsletter that MLM company Mannatech put out for their members. If you have a look at the July 2009 issue of eCelebrate you’ll find mention of SugarMums founders Lucilla and James Howison.
We would also like to make a special mention of the Duchenne Muscular Distrophy charity ball that some of Mannatech Corporate attended on Friday 19 June along with Ken Green, Silver Presidential, James and Lucilla Howison, Presidentials and Pino & Laura Egiziano, Executives.
Mannatech are an MLM Network Marketing Company that sell weight and fitness, health and skin care products. Mannatech offer a compensation for business associates to join the company and market their products.
Mannatech appear to specialise in products developed using glycobiology. Wikipedia defines glycobiology as
the study of the structure, biosynthesis, and biology of saccharides (sugar chains or glycans) that are widely distributed in nature.
The sugar relationship between glycobiology and saccarides is presumably where the name SugarMums comes from. For people looking at joining SugarMums, selling these Mannatech health products is the line of work you’ll be involved in.
For anyone looking for information on the SugarMums specifically, I hope this information clears up what the business is about. I’ve since written a full review of the Mannatech MLM business opportunity on BehindMLM, which goes into much greater detail of the mechanics of Mannatech itself.
Hi great post! I have been with sugarmums for a while now and i have found it to be so much more than just another team in MLM.
The training and support they offer is endless and they have such a great system they use. If you have any questions about sugarmums mail me and I can help answer them.
Hi Lisa i was wondering if you could give me some more insight as to how ‘we’ would work exactly, for example do i sit on the phone all day selling the product like a telemarketer? any information would be helpful.
Gday Alexia,
I’d imagine you’d be employing the usual methods of recruitment most MLM marketers use these days.
You’ll probably be using a ‘personalised’ replicated website you’re supposed to drive traffic to, which is then followed up vvia a phone answering system to funnel out tire kickers.
Then there’s leaflets, cold calling, email, bandit signs etc. etc.
Good luck getting an official response from Sugarmums without joining the business first.
Hi Alexia,
I just saw your post. I have a Sugarmums business and would love to chat to you. If you can provide me with your email address or phone number I can contact you with lots of information regarding Home based business.
Cheers
Pippa
Why can’t you just discuss it openly it public for the benefit of anyone else looking for more detailed information on Sugarmums?
Email or phone number… geez why is everything so secret with you people?
Hi all- Oz the reason I said that to Alexia is I wasn’t aware everyone else wanted information there is no reason to be so hostile.
I am happy to give anyone information about Sugarmums, and no you don’t have to join up before we give you information.
Some key points regarding this opportunity are:
• Free websites
• Free conferences
• Free personal mentorship
• Free tuition from top leaders
• Provides a system that once put in place, provides an ongoing royalty style income that can equal the upper limits of top CEO’s.
• Proprietary patented technology that no-one else can copy or market with broad market appeal.
• We help build your first business by placing people in your business.
• The cost to get involved is minimal
• Can be built outside of your normal working commitments
Yes Mannatech and Sugarmums are connected but the beauty about Sugarmums is you DON’T have to sell Mannatech products if you don’t want to.
Most other MLM or direct selling companies you DO have to sell the products to make money.
Yes you do have to have a 100 point order (equates to approx $110 month) but the products are so good that most people take them anyway who join. I see it this way if you worked for ford would you drive a holden?????
I have always taken a multivitamin so for me I just buy through my business at wholesale rather than buying from the shops.
A lot of people just build there business and gain an income from that rather than sell the products because they don’t want to be a pushy sales person so its completely your choice how you run your business.
I hope that helps you all, and yes if you do need some more info just ask, I’m more than happy to provide it to you all. Feel free to email me to ask.
It sounds like SugarMums is NOT a MLM, but rather, a support group, like Network 21 for Amway.
As long as the products are SOLD TO OUTSIDE CONSUMERS at a reasonable price it is legal enough. However, if the inventory is being “cycled” within the circle of distributors it’s a scam.
Hi what do you mean by “cycled” within the circle of distributors?
I mean the “inventory” is not simply sold from one member to another (otherwise known as a money circulation scheme, or Ponzi scheme), but actually sold to people who’ll use them.
In a Ponzi scheme, the latercomers pay the early joiners (through the schemer). So as long as more people join than leaving, those who leave enjoys a “profit”.
In a disguised Ponzi scheme (who often disguise themselves as MLMs), the “inventory” takes place of the money. The “upline” recruits new people, then sells them the “inventory”, and the new recruit is expected to repeat the process by selling the inventory to his or her recruit. While some merchandise changed hands, what really happened is money moved from downline to upline. The inventory was a disguise.
Hi,
Sugarmums/Mannatech is not like that. Yes you do have an upline but sometimes people in your downline can be earning more than you it happens all the time.
The Mannatech products are genuine products that we sell, you can sell them to anyone you want.
That’s good to know. Good luck.
However, keep in mind that you have to know how to sell to strangers, or learn quickly. Network Marketing, after all, is a form of marketing, which means SELLING. If you can’t sell to strangers, you will never succeed in MLM / NM.
Hi Pippa, thanks for taking the time to reply.
Hmmm…. so you can earn an income without selling products? You know what that sounds like right?
Out of curiosity, what multi-vitamins cost $110 a month? I’m assuming there’s a business fee as well on top of the minimum product order.
So they recruit others to the Mannatech business opportunity without actually selling any type of product? Sounds like a ….
The possibility to sell doesn’t negate that it could still by ineffective to sell from a business sense. If the option is there to sell retail and nobody is doing it, why do you think that is so?
I know you never said nobody was selling retail but in an MLM company you should never be able to earn an income solely from recruiting. It’s the hallmark of a pyramid scheme.
Hi,
Obviously Oz you have an answer for everything. At the end of the day as I said you choose how to run your Sugarmums/Mannatech business.
You can earn and income from business building, business building and selling or just selling, and many people do it from all of these different ways.
It is not pyramid selling, pyramid selling is illegal.
I have taken the time to answer the questions that some people have asked about Sugarmums/Mannatech, but if you want to just pick at it then I don’t have the time to waste as I am busy with my business.
if anyone is genuinally interested in this business please contact me, otherwise I wish you the best of luck with everything.
Pippa, there are skeptics in the world who doubts people’s words. I am one, Oz is another. We’ve seen the “bad” side of MLM and pseudo-MLM scams that disguises themselves as MLMs and emphasize on recruiting.
As long as you derive most of your income from selling, you’ll be fine. It is the “promise” of “a lot of” MLMs that you can let your “team” do all the selling and you do nothing that is very worrisome for me and Oz.
You may want to read my little “essay” on Network Marketing.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Network-Marketing-What-You-Need-to-Know-Before-You-Join
I don’t have an answer for everything, I just like to thoroughly understand what people are saying.
By business building you mean recruiting others to the Sugarmums/Mannatech business opportunity right? If you can join this opportunity and just make money by recruiting others to the opportunity, who then can earn money solely by recruiting others to the business opportunity – well, what does that sound like to you?
I know the other options are there, but the fact that this recruiting only option exists is a big red flag.
Out of curiosity, in your honest opinion which of the three income earning scenarios you’ve listed (recruitment only, recruitment + retail, retail only) is the most popular amongst Mannatech’s distributor base?
If it’s recruitment only then you’ve definitely got a problem.
Not interested in picking at you, but if you could answer the above query I’d be grateful, cheers.
Hi Guys, it is the “skeptics” in the world that make good home based businesses look bad and there are plenty of those out there. By presuming all homebased businesses are “scams” you don’t give the good ones a chance with all the bad mouthing that goes on.
I cannot say which scenario is the most popular in the whole of Mannatech but I do know that in my team there is a mix of all three and people are making good money from doing it.
What do you mean by the above statement?
How can skeptic make things look bad if there’s nothing to look bad? Skeptics simply refuse to accept dogma, and demand proof. If there’s nothing for us to criticize, then there’s nothing. We don’t make up stuff, unlike some unscrupulous MLM members.
The difference among the 3 scenarios can be narrowed to a single question: are you recruiting salespeople, or are you recruiting recruiters?
Recruiting recruiters = pyramid scheme
Recruiting salespeople = network marketing
As long as you are really recruiting salespeople, and teaching them to sell, you are network marketer. You can do a portion of recruiting, but then, you only recruit the GOOD salespeople and teach them how to recruit and manage the best, right?
Hi All,
I have had experience with people being so against MLM companies purely because of “stuff” they have heard.
I recruit salespeople and recruiters. I teach all my team members how to market the Mannatech products and their Sugarmums/Mannatech business, and how to teach their team members to do the same.
My understanding of pyramid schemes that are illegal in Australia is that there is a person at the top and only that person ends up benefiting from all the people “under” him/her doing all the hard work.
Sugarmums/Mannatech is not a pyramid scheme and does not work like that.
Well, Pippa, I am not against MLM in general. I am against badly run MLM that turned into recruiting recruiters (i.e. pyramid scheme) and scams that disguised themselves as MLM. There are plenty of good MLMs out there, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have bad people doing bad things in them. And there are plenty of fake MLMs, enough of them that one should stay skeptical.
As long as your PRIMARY EMPHASIS is on selling, and not recruiting, you should be fine. After all, it’s network marketing, not network recruiting. All Oz and I are saying is that if there is more emphasis on recruiting than selling, then it looks very suspicious.
A pyramid scheme doesn’t necessarily enrich only the top person. A “matrix”, which is what a lot of pyramid schemes call themselves nowadays, is just a short pyramid, and any one “cycle out” was enriched by all who “joined” the matrix. If an alleged MLM is all about recruiting, i.e. you can make money by ONLY recruiting, and not sell anything, then it is essentially a pyramid scheme, because you get paid by recruiting, and not by selling anything.
That’s why sometimes pyramid scheme is called a “money circulation scam”. Basically the money from the latecomers (i.e. those recruited) is used to pay the early birds (i.e. the recruiter). it’s just money moving around, nothing’s sold, no value was created.
I will take your word for it that you’re indeed selling things and recruiting is a purely secondary activity. I don’t know about Oz. 😀
Thank you, I am a very honest person and don’t like to be ripped of or will I rip anyone off, I am honest and upfront with my business, it is a network marketing business and thats how I run it.
The Mannatech products are fantastic products and I have no problems recommending them to anyone, so I sell them because they are so good.
If people who join Mannatech/Sugarmums choose to focus more on building a business then that is there choice.
I meant that if in a business you have the option of earning an income by solely recruiting others, who in turn can earn an income by solely recruiting others – that right there is the definition of the inner workings of a pyramid scheme.
Sure Mannatech might provide the option of selling it’s products but if commissions are geared to encourage an income via solely recruiting people and ignoring the product line, well then you’re not really selling anything other then the business opportunity itself arent you?
I’m not suggesting you’re doing this but rather that if it’s a possibility then that in my opinion is a red flag regarding the business. All it takes is one person to join the business and start marketing as a business opportunity, recruit a few levels deep and then exponentially you’ve got dozens of people mass recruiting others on the idea all they need to do is go out and recruit even more people.
When that happens it’s not long before the entire thing collapses and for that reason you shouldn’t be able to earn an income solely on recruitment in any MLM.
At the end of the day, the moment you apply for a job attend and interview and accept a job for someone else, you are networking or recruiting in some way for a wage, which will be less than your Managers Wage/Salary which will be less than their Manager/CEO Company owner and so on.
Sugarmums is just one other way of this happening but you are generating your own income from a legitimate Company that is listed on the NASDAQ and educating others on living a healthier life utilising products that most of us use daily.
We have all had bad experiences with jobs, people etc throughout our lives but that doesn’t stop people looking for jobs or meeting new people and the same should be said for MLM businesses, don’t judge a book by its cover.
Hi Shanpy,
Well said and I couldn’t agree more.
Cheers Pippa
If I go ant get a job at Maccas they aren’t paying me to network or recruit other people to work at Maccas. Same with any other office job.
I’m paid to do the job description I interviewed for. Unless that job description was ‘go out and recruit other people or network’ then I fail to see how you’re automatically being paid a wage to network or recruit.
Don’t confuse networking with network marketing.or recruiting
Networking = making friends and acquaintances that you may be able to tap later for personal and professional gain; expanding your social circle
Network marketing = selling within the social circle
Recruiting = locate a candidate for a job and convince that candidate the job is perfect for the candidate.
Unless your job is a recruiter within a company (Yanks called them “headhunters”) you NEVER recruit, except once in a while recommend a friend who’s out of work.
Apply for a job, vs. being RECRUITED for a job is also complete opposites. If you interview at a company, you usually applied for the position, if they recruit you, they probably knew all about you and interview is merely a formality.
I am a Mannatech associate. When a person/company/trust joins at the business building the money pays for patented worldbeating product that generally address society wide deficiencies.
Commission is paid on product sales and as bonuses which load the front end . It is a legal award winning system in a public scientific research and development company that has glass laboratory walls and extremely high standards and returns about 46pc of turnover to currently about 500,000 associates.
Hope that sheds some light Cheers
Is there anywhere these supposed “facts” can be verified, Mr. Maddern?
Where can be compensation plan be publicly reviewed?
Are there third-party reviews on Mannatech products?
Where are the accounting figures that shows the 46% returns?
I am a bit of a skeptic when it comes to MLMs. I believe those are very relevant questions that will separate a pseudo-MLM-scam from a real MLM, and how scammers may be exploiting a real MLM for their own nefarious purposes.
I second K. Chang’s calls for proof. Those are some pretty wild unsubstantiated claims to throw around.
500,000 members, uh what?
Public companies have all that stuff in the public domain MTEX on the nasdaq. about product validation WWW. mannatechscience.org or you could ring customer service in oz 028437 7400 and if you are impressed (as it is all impressive ) my associate no is 2700278 must go phone battery almost dead
Not that impressive, actually. MTEX is at 1.69, EPS of -0.52 (i.e. LOSING MONEY), 3Q sales is DOWN from 2Q by about 8%, recruiting shows 2% decline as well. Commission cost cited was 42.1%, below the 46% you cited.
http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/MTEX.aspx
It’s severely UNDERperforming S&P500. Sorry, not impressive at all.
found this as well on, http://blog.legendarylife.com/mannatech-strikes-again-with-holy-water
Looks like Mannatech is at it again, this time, revolutionizing water!
Background
I reviewed the company Mannatech a few weeks ago for their successful attempts at circumventing laws, selling nothing but useless overpriced sugar pills and telling those taking them it will cure their cancer, aids and a host of other outrageous claims. (Mannatech: Overpriced Sugar Pills)
Well, I guess they are on fire now, apparently, they have discovered something new, truly revolutionizing… water! I have to give them credit though, they admit they are selling nothing but sugar pills, now they are selling water, at least they got some honesty (however perverse).
Enhanced Water Technology
You got to be kidding, people actually believe this bull shit? Water, is made by two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, forming H2O. If it was H3O or HO3 then it isn’t water, it’s something else! Their new line of revolutionizing skin care product, dubbed “Optimal Skin Care System” is free of preservatives, fragrances and colorants… their marketing worked overtime on this one folks because the secret behind being able to do this is Enhanced Water Technology! WOW….
Tensa Water
I though this was a joke but apparently Mannatechs incredible water technology uses proprietary filtration and enhancement systems that creates a new form of water called Tensa Water. What is Tensa Water? Well, it’s like glyconutrients, a catch phrase that only exists in marketing departments as opposed to scientific ones. Tensa means Heavenly. So, to put this another way, Mannatechs Water Technology, the thing they spent so much R&D developing via prayer produces Heavenly Water.
Clinical Studies?
Mannatech is as synonymous to a clinical study as a boat is to an orange tree. They did a study that showed by using this incredible heavenly water called Tensa that people had increased skin moisture, smoothness and hydration… no shit… they are putting water on it! They even point to the fact that this study found out that radiance (incredibly subjective word that is scientifically useless) grew by 75% and skin moisture improved by 100%! Mannatech has to be laughing all the way to the bank on this one.
Ultra Pure Water
Well, apparently Tensa is a revolution and they have also invented Ultra Pure Water as well, with a mix of other naturally sourced ingredients such as trehalose, iris florentina root extract with isoflavone, yeast extract, amino acids, vitamins, minerals and artemia extract.
What’s Next?
Well, I am convinced that in a few months Mannatech will be selling dirt, after water and sugar, this has to be the next logical step… no? 75% of the Earth is covered by water, they got that market covered so the next 25% must come from the land itself as they have also cornered the vegetation growing on land. I think they may even be crazy enough to sell Holy Air which you add via compressed canister to all your meals to help triple it’s nutritional content. I can see the headline now “Mannatech Revolutionizes Air and Dirt with proprietary technology that infuses the Holy Spirit in every atom, leading to a total rejuvenation of mind and spirit”.
The Bottom Line
At least people buying overpriced water to put on their skin isn’t going to cause death or serious injury, unlike their sugar pill that some people take instead of sound medical knowledge. This company is a joke, ripping people off all while laughing all the way to the bank.
I ain’t surprised. Here on local TV, Asian channel has an ad about this doctor touting “hexagonal water”, and you can make hexagonal water from tap water by using his special pitcher with a little “spinner” inside (that basically spins the water like that “flavor wave oven” you can buy on TV). 😛
More on Hexagonal Water… $500 !?!?!
http://www.amazon.com/Vitalizer-Plus-Hexagonal-Oxygen-Water/dp/B0017SJFEG
And here’s Wired Magazine busting this scam…
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/chem-lab-hexago/
Well I’m surprised.
How the hell do you even begin to market Tensa water to someone. Jesus Christ I’d love to meet the person who is told about Tensa water and swallows (no pun intended).
Sorry, Pippa (or “my dreams” who advertises in Perth Child magazine) but this IS a pyramid scheme…. but wearing fluffy bunny ears so it can be called a fluffy bunny instead.
Let’s face it- selling sugar pills is not the purpose of the business. I’ve heard of SugarMums a billion times but only in the context of me joining up. Even the COMPANY HOMEPAGE will not tell me what you sell, just that I should sign up.
If the company wanted you to sell the product, it would market the product.
I bet you that if I emailed the company and said “I have $5000 and would like to spend it on sugar pills” do you think they would say “well we have a distributor called Pippa in your area, buy some off her, if you like them you might like to join up as a distributor yourself” or do you think they would just say “join up and then you can have pills”?
The fact is, you are probably working hard at what you think is a legit business and kudos to you for that. But you are being scammed. The company wants you to give them $110 a month and also recruit new people who also pay at least $110 a month and you’ll get a cut of that.
The company doesn’t care if you sell the sugar pills or flush them down the toilet. If they cared about you selling the pills, or the reputation of the pills, then they would market the pills. You can’t promote/sell something and keep it hidden at the same time.
Did you know that brothels are illegal? And that in order to run as a legit business some of them operate as bars whereby you can buy a cocktail for $80 and just be gosh darned lucky enough to get a BJ too? Some protection rackets and drug networks require you to spend money on an overpriced product, like a coffee or a tshirt, from a shopfront and then you get the overpriced product plus the illegal perks but it’s all ‘legit’ because the company can account for every penny of actually illegal profit they make?
These businesses have found a way to operate so that they are jusssssssst legal, despite being actually really, really dodgy.
This company just wants your $110/month. That’s all they need. They don’t want you to sell pills, they want the pills to NOT sell so that in desperation to break even you recruit more people who are curious about the product. Those people send $110/mth up the chain.
And to the bloke further up the thread… if there were really 500,000 people selling $110/mth+ worth of pills, surely the pills would be in every home in Australia and be a household name by now instead of the most closely guarded secret in the world!
The pills are just a front. You know that. We all do.
Call it what you want Lori Pyramid Schemes are illegal In Australia, I have no problems promoting Mannatech and there products and when I do speak to anyone about Sugarmums/Mannatech I tell them about Mannatech and then they can make up there own mind about it.
I believe in their products and they work for me, I have tried many different dietary supplements over the years but so far I have found Mannatech to be the best.
This is just turning into a slaying match which I am not interested in being involved in, if you don’t like Sugarmums/Mannatech or whoever then thats your choice. No one is forcing anyone to start their own business its the individuals choice.
Hi. All this talk about sugar pills is wrong. Sugar pills are used in experiments to rule out the placebo effect because the do nothing.
In contrast glyconutrients, are 8 specific sugars of which 6 are no longer in the western diet. our ability to cross produce them from other sugars is energy intensive andturns off with stress, infection and the like.
You would not be a multicellular animal without them, as they form glycopoteins on the surface that are responsible for signalling between cells and specifying what ABO group your red cells are. and people who can’t metabolise them have a shortened life, and because they affect the structure and function of the immune system you could say many people have died for lack of them.
Not sugar pills but technology everyone breathing needs. cheers David
BTW I can explain the share dive you saw on the nasdaq under MTEX. At the australian conference in October Sam Caster, now the consulting CEO announced that Mannatech would match (think new) automatic orders with equal value nutritional supplements to third world countries through Mannareleif, could be that public markets are not used to that kind of corporate culture.
You know the automatic order as $110
Mr. Maddern, I *hate* to say this, but you are sprouting pseudo-science. I was recently exposed to a similar explanation, and I was not amused. The stuff was “Pharmanex” scanner, which supposedly can measure your overall health by measuring some anti-oxidants in your skin.
Your explanation about the complex sugars, in my opinion, comes dangerously close to that sort of techno-babble explanation that somehow “proves” I need to buy their “Lifepack Nano” vitamins, so I can score better on their scanner test.
As for your explanation, the dip started in JUNE 2010, long before your so called “conference” announcement. Sorry, no sale.
not pseudoscience my friend. unless you work for a drug company in which case I understand your position.
glyconutrients when absorbed in the large bowel, carried through the distal gut in gums and the like and bind with proteins and lipids to form glycolipids,glycoproteins,and proteoglycans which form all kind of things around the body like hormomes, collagen, cartilage. they are fundamental.
vitamins….. did you see a paper in the am. journal of nutrition about a meta study (amalgamating 47 research papers on vitamins) and the conclusion was that people who take synthetic vitamins have a higher mortality.
I take the only plant bound vitamins and minerals that I know of on the market. they are produced by a patented process by Mannatech. bus nearly into town cya
@David Maddern:
The word “glyconutrient” does not seem to exist outside Mannatech? They seem to have invented their own word – which looks a little like scientific words such as “glycobiology” and “glycoprotein” – but the very word itself is just as scientifically as “Snake Oil”.
“Snake Oil” is the nickname of “miracle medicines” to cure all sorts of diseases, or have other positive effects on health – at least if we can trust the manufacturer. The manufacturer is usually the only one who have managed to find such positive effects.
When someone criticizes you for pseudo-science, the cause is probably that you mix non-scientific and scientific elements in your statements.
I think very few of us have been studying glycobiology. You have almost certainly not studied it either, except from reading the selling points you should use?
GLYCOBIOLOGY:
A quick overview of the topic of glycobiology says that the body itself produces all the sugars it needs, that this is a natural part of the body’s chemical processes. Of course, they need energy like any other mechanical or chemical process, but the use of energy is also a natural part of the body’s processes.
I find no allegations that these chemical processes produces stress, inflammation or diseases, nor anything about the need of supplementation of some sugars.
The need for these supplements seem to be limited to consultants for Mannatech. For some reason it seems as if the need arises BECAUSE of this task. Until now they have lived all their lives without such supplements – before they joined Mannatech.
This suggests that most people will get along very well without such supplements, if they also avoid being consultants for Mannatech. I’m guessing that you had good health even before you started with these “sugar pills”? Your health have declined if your body has become dependent on supplements that it didn’t need before.
I afraid David Maddern belongs to the Homer J Simpson school of snake oil salesmen. Pseudo science and babble dressed up to fool the gullible. He reminds me of Peter Popoff the fraudulent faith healer exposed by James Randi who is still out there flogging his “miracle water”. Have a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGuawSq6zDA –it’s hilarious.
Snake oil was northern sea snakes fat and was an oil because it was rich in omega3 and was healthgiving to the fishermen who ate them.
Yes the word glyconutrient was coined by Mannatech scientists, they were at the front edge of glycobiology and still are . eg the last international glycobiology congress 2 of 9 papers were submitted by them.
I myself have been well but then again after going on glyconutriens the rodent uluse in my R eye orbit ( a slow form of cancer that can ‘take’ an eye), also pterigia on my eye surfaces are gone (sorry no spell check) , and you seem to think society is well!
Society has cancer approaching 1:2 , allergies to foods are rampant, the autism- asburgers continuum is now 1:10 or so and was 1:4,000 not may years ago , behavioral sydromes unknown previously like ADHD/ASH are incredibly common .parkinsons..all to do with inter cell communication and/or immune system dysfunction.
Wow!
I guess dyslexia is the only disease glyconutriens does not cure.
another comment M_Norway, you misread the processes do not cause stress etc but are energy intensive and are turned off with stress and require sleep
far simpler eating them o and by the way babies get colosrum in the first breast episodes and 1/3 of the solids are glyconutrients. breast fed babies turn into kids with higher iq., better behaved with more competent immune systems. formula does not have them.
have I said that polymannose has the demonstrated action of activate stem cells, so Aloe vera polymannose is in the ambrotose product. I specifically asked why this effect is not advertised. I was told it is due to the association of disease with stem cells. seems simple minded to me.
glyconutrients do not cure anything they allow the body to work properly
@David Maddern:
The most common use of the word “Snake Oil” is as a description of quack medicines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil
See if you find any similarities between your own practices and Wikipedia articles about “Snake Oil”? The rest of us can at least find some similarities.
Sam Caster, founder of Mannatech, has been active with “technological innovations” earlier. “Eagle Shield” and “Electrocat” are two good examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannatech#Sam_Caster
Where did you read this?
According to Wikipedia, a study from 2007 showed that about 0,4 % of all children could be diagnosed with autism or Asperger’s syndrome.
Can you please present any source supporting that 10 % of the population (not 10 % of all MLM-junkies) have an autism diagnose?
This is one of the myths perpetuated by pseudo scientists which bears no relation to reality. It works as a marketing tool because people who have relatives with some sort of problem are constantly on the look out for the reason for the problem, and hopefully some sort of miracle cure.
In the past few years the continuum has been broadened so much that just about anybody can belong on it. Humans living in developed countries are the best fed, healthiest and well nourished ever. You only have to look at the generation of school kids growing taller and stronger than their parents in every city and town in the western world.
I believe this autism fake news was one of those busted on Penn and Teller’s Bull**** show… Autism numbers went up because the definition was widened.
I believe Mr. Madden just destroyed his credibility completely, by citing that bogus stat. Thanks for the illustration.
Fair enough I was not aware of any correction to figures from what I thought was a credible source. It was however part of a wider point that society is sick. Cancer increase is enough!
When one correspondant assumed there is no place for supplements. the FDA recommendation using serum ORAC recommend something like 9-12 serves of fruit. do you know anyone who has that daily dose?
Those avoiding that (expensive) diet should supplement their diets to get sufficient antioxidants, as populations who are long lived, reside in areas generally blessed with a special antioxidant.
Beware, some reputed antioxidants are not all they are trumpeted to be. Scientists testing Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity equipment thought they’d brew up some -got absolutely no serum change.
Contacted the manufacturer who replied “should’ve told us you were going to test it, I air dry it for a price . I’ll send you some for testing” it arrived under liquid nitrogen. How cynical is that?
Enough for what? Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of medicine knows that “cancer” is not a single disease. Brain cancer is not the same as lung cancer which is different from melanoma. Rates of some cancers are decreasing while others are increasing.
Probably the main cause of any cancer increase is the increasing average age of the population. There will always be quacks out there trying to exploit the vulnerable with their cure-alls and fancy sales pitch.
Another reason for “increase” of cancer is better diagnosis. Previously it was just chalked up to various unknown causes.
fellows there are a few stages to cancer getting away in the body. First is the generation of a metastatic cell. This can be through DNA corruption through oxidation, breakage, and lack of repair.
The CSIRO in oz found that pollution and alcohol break DNA ( you’d agree that smoking is pollution ) and that folic acid is a rate limiting nutrient in contemporary society, for DNA repair. I wrote of antioxidants above. Whatever the generation of cancer the immune system is then ‘designed’ to knock the cancerous cells out. But scientists in the field say that across society immune systems are losing effectiveness of 1 to 4% per annum.
My point is that although cancers are diverse the immune system is a system that relies on intercell communication and intercell communications rely on glycoproteins on the cell surface. Is it too great a step to say that lack of glyconutrients (endogenous or dietary) causes a lack of specificity in immune response.
Glyconutrients by diet have been demonstrated to cause changes in glycolation of Immunoglobulin G in the body.
Yes. You have no evidence that this is so. It is an unproven hypothesis. In fact, the only thing glycoproteins have in common with “glyco-nutrients” is the glyco- prefix.
Leading experts in glyco-biology have specifically said Mannatech products only increase flatulence. So called Ambrotose cannot be absorbed by body because body has no enzyme for it.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannatech
I don’t have the specific reference for the IgG glycolation but I understand that it was one of the 2 papers Mannatech presented to the last Glycobiology Conference. It is based on European research that matched disease states to glycolation patterns.
There has been a huge campaign by BigPharma to discredit Mannatech.
Just why would glyconutrients be 1/3 of solids,in human colostrum if the human only gets flatulance.
As Sam Caster says “someone should tell God …they don’t work”
fact is, the research goes on. He also said “we know they work, we are just now finding out how”
cheers
Also what would cause the good drs. flatulance? It would,be the gut biota, bacteria and fungi. Well it is these residents that do have the enzymes to release the sugars for absorption by pump sites that get them into the bloodstream.
Oh sure, now we’re at the “blame a conspiracy” stage… When there’s no argument left, blame a conspiracy.
TVI Express: when they ran out of arguments, they blame a conspiracy of the rich out to oppress the poor.
Vaccine Denial: when they ran out of arguments, they blame the big pharmas for keeping people sick.
Holocaust Denial: when they ran out of arguments, they blame the Jewish conspiracy
And now, we’ll have to add Mannatech to the list…when they ran out of arguments, they blame the big pharmas for a smear campaign against them.
Not so, when at a glycobiology conference drug ppl were touting how they could use sugars to deliver drugs, Mannatech ppl got up and said that their experience was that crude fractions of plants containing essential sugars achieved what drugs aim to do. Threatened by redundancy a few of the pharma heavies got together and the result has been small operations copying glyconutrient packaging testing mannatech patents (been 10-20 of them) web sites tuned for search engines showing negative slants, (my mother wasted her money on sugar pills) Wikipedia entries like you found (I would think not a good medium for specific research given the ease of biased information ) etc etc. At one stage a letter was obtained spelling out their position as in.. we must do all we can to nobble this company cos if people find out that their disease is down to the food they consume then our privileged position in society is at risk and our government subsidies will dry up … paraphrased of course.
Incidentally manna patents stood all the tests.
So you don’t object to anything else I post , just wheel in the conspiracy argument and childish assertions that the only relation between glyconutrients and glycoproteins is the glyco- prefix which is patently absurd.
cheers
I don’t object to anything you said because you didn’t write anything substantial for me to refute yet. Neither you and I are supposedly “glyco-biologists”. You don’t believe in editors of “Glycobiology” as you think they are quacks, but you didn’t refute that they are indeed experts in the field. Thus, there really isn’t much more to discuss. 🙂
My concern with those ‘experts’ is that drug companies may well be employing them so they could be partisan ..there is a multimillion ($M30 if I remember correctly) glycobiology department at Oxford dedicated to drug associated glyconutrient research. Indeed I doubt that a non partisan scientist would make a comment like that which he gives a negative that of course can’t be proved. A more prudent statement might be ‘ there is currently no evidence for glyconutrients doing any more than causing flatulance’
and they’d still get their joke in.
But now there is evidence as I have outlined previously Not quacks however. I have no doubt that they are serious in what they do.
Getting back to the subject a network marketing model has been very good for a small Texas startup with new technology and limited capital 16 years ago. To them it was inexpensive and virtually without risk. In fact, it was the associate force that invested in their successful IPO (float on the public share market) Since then they have built state of the art laboratories and have continued to bring out world-beating health products for the wellness of individuals.
An antioxidant that was nearly 4 years in development, after finding that mixture of antioxidant can be synergistic or antagonistic, they looked for the most synergistic blend.
The result is that the capsules 2 per day get the serum Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity to more than twice the serum level attained with the recommended additional fruit and veg. (smokers need 3, showing how far behind they are)
Another world-first is the hydroponically grown Indian mustard plants, the leaves of which are pressed into a capsule. This licensed technology concentrates minerals and vitamins which are thus plant bound and bioavailable.
Then there is the modified whey licensed technology, which has
4 mechanisms and has been through 2 double blind crossover trials.
Theres more, but starts to feel like a sales job.
Network marketing is a legitimate way to spread these materials around. At its purest a friend talks to a friend and they talk to their friend and the middle friend programmes a meeting where the three have a drink or meal (each has been given a short presentation and web sites to look at ) and the first teaches both of them.
sustainable and lucrative
cheers
Nothing wrong with the mlm model overall, Dave. The *problem* is some mlms are actually pseudo-mlm scams disguised as MLMs. They value recruiting over selling, which make them pyramid scheme in disguise. Some use pseudo-science to push their products. I’m sure some people have heard of hexagonal water? 🙂
It’s telling the scam apart from the real opportunity that’s difficult. However, it can usually be gleamed from what the distributors emphasize: recruiting, or the product?
As explained earlier mannatechs system is all about product in that membership at the premium level buys discounted product and the 28day recurring payment which buys consumable product (min $A110) is required for all levels to get any benefit from those downline. So even a concentration on recruiting drives product sales and is the best way to get them out through society, just happens you can get rich doing it.
@David Maddern — How does one get rich by BUYING stuff?
getting many ppl to take the products by attracting them to the business of getting more people into the business via the model outlined earlier.
@David Maddern — so the business is actually to encourage consumption of the stuff, but not by selling the stuff, but encourage others to join a “buying club” where stuff is auto-shipped.
In other words, you are selling a membership, not a product. Would that be accurate?
I suppose so, the system supports both direct sales and network marketing but don’t know about the buying club.
Yes memberships get more people on them, and when they are schooled in how network marketing works they will get an associate force under them and residual income comes from the amount of product consumed on auto order
That was what you wrote, yes? So you join for discounts on the product? That’s a buying club, isn’t it?
So I am still a little confused. You were saying that you get rich by “buying” stuff, then you said you actually get rich by selling membership in this buying club (discounts) for the products. So you don’t actually sell the products directly and profit from that? I’m trying to see where the $$$ comes from.
I haven’t looked at Mannatech in detail, but recruiting people and relying on a residual from their compulsory autoship doesn’t sound very retail to me.
In duplicating this you’ve got to go out and recruit more people and if this is what the bulk of Mannatech distributors are striving for, it would appear Mannatech is a heavily recruitment driven business opportunity.
In other words you’re not going to have any success with it unless you went out and recruited a large team, pretty much ignoring retail sales.
Well one can direct sell product by giving a .1300 no, and associate no, or buy wholesale and sell retail or enroll others or all three.
Yes, the big $ come from depth and width of the associate force generated.
This is an award winning legal system but I think your evaporated summary of what’s right and what’s wrong is off. It clearly isn’t if one concentrates on recruiting. I suggest you look up a legal definition.
A pro-MLM attorney, Gerald Nehra, discussed this in his article here:
http://mlmatty.com/abc.php
“The company brings a product or service to the marketplace that… (A2) does not include a right to bring more participants to the company. A service that contains the right to bring customers to the company, like a shopping mall, can qualify, but not if it also contains the right to bring more income opportunity seekers (legally, “participants”) to the company. Multilevel income opportunities CANNOT be sold in the United States or Canada.
”
In other words, if you recruit people to sell the product, good. If you recruit people just you can earn recruiting commission… bad.
And if most people just buy stuff for self-consumption, then any bonus for recruiting those people becomes illegal as it’s just “headhunting bonus”.
That is an Attorney’s letter, not the specific inspection of a proposal which must have gone on, or an excert of a law off the statutes.
Except he’s one of the the most pro-MLM attorney in the US. He was head of legal department of Amway for 9 years. If he says that’s what’s required, it’s what’s required.
As for law, which law do you want? Federal law, state law from all 50 states? or which country?
Perhaps you want to read a very similar article from a different MLM attorney in the US?
http://www.mlmlaw.com/library/guides/Primer.htm
It was quoted out of context. It is easy to qualify a type of operation and then go for it. I am fairly sure that you just quoted the going for it.
I don’t have any need to see statutes and such as I am satisfied that Mannatech has been through all that and their model passed.
The worlds richest people buy network marketing companies, so I doubt that they are illegal.
@ David Maddern —
You are “fairly sure” I quoted Mr. Nehra out of context. Your proof? None. It is merely your opinion. Based on what? Guess that’ll remain a mystery.
You “are satisfied” Mannatech is legal based on FTC and other guidelines. Why? Guess that’ll remain a mystery as well. But that wasn’t what’s being challenged.
You believe network marketing is legal. Why? Because some rich people buy them. That’s a non-sequitur. Is that related to Mannatech? Only in the sense that Mannatech claims to be network marketing (but then, so did TVI Express, and plenty of other scams)
Besodes. who said network marketing is illegal? We are discussing Mannatech’s marketing practices (actually Sugarmom’s marketing practices) and whether it is a legal MLM or is it leaning more toward pyramid scheme, not the whole industry.
You seem to be relying more and more on opinions instead of facts.
@David Maddern — also, is it me or are you just shifting positions from one thing to another? Just in this thread, from the beginning…
We discuss Sugarmom’s with Pippa, then you jumped in with some standard PR line touting great research, public company, etc.
I ask you to provide some linkable facts for us to review, you just gave the MTEX symbol and say it’s a great company.
I looked up real performance of MTEX stocks and cited it LOST money, had large amount of churn, etc.
You replied it must be due to a speech by leader where they donated a lot of stuff.
I checked the stock prices and the drop happened MONTHS before the speech.
You then posted some blah-blah about glyconutrients why the body supposedly may benefit from it.
I posted research by leading glycobiologists that says Mannatech products have dubious value.
You claim they are probably employed by big pharmas who have their own agenda against Mannatech. You cite company line about double blind trials and years of research and whatnot.
I asked you point blank: what is Mannatech about: product or recruiting?
You replied with some mumbo-jumbo about how “buying” products will make you rich.
I asked you for details.
You then explained that what you actually do is convince people to buy stuff, by buying a membership in which stuff is automatically shipped to you.
I ask you to confirm what you said.
Your reply was “Yes, the big $ come from depth and width of the associate force generated. This is an award winning legal system but I think your evaporated summary of what’s right and what’s wrong is off. It clearly isn’t if one concentrates on recruiting. I suggest you look up a legal definition.”
So you just admit that the big money comes from recruiting, not selling.
You ask for legal definition. I quoted a legal definition from Gerald Nehra, one of the leading MLM attorneys in the US.
You wrote “That is an Attorney’s letter, not the specific inspection of a proposal which must have gone on, or an excert of a law off the statutes.”
I then explained the credentials of this lawyer, and cited yet ANOTHER guidelines from ANOTHER set of famous MLM attorneys, Grimes and Reese.
Your reply was “It was quoted out of context.” and that you believe that network marketing is fine if rich people invest in it.
Is it me, or do you just retreat from every position you’ve taken thus far?
And in case you wonder, this is nothing personal. I am an amateur skeptic and was co-captain of debate team back in high school. 😀
@David Maddern
I believe a major problem exists if you’re able to sustain the big $ by just recruiting people who are then forced to have a product quota on autoship. If you can generate a substantial income without additional retail sales, or encouraging a downline to retail then sooner or later it’s going to fall apart.
@Oz — perhaps Mr. Maddern can’t explain it right, but based on the way he’s done so far, it almost sounds as if it will run afoul of the 70% rule in the US (70% of inventory must be sold or consumed). The question mainly is whether members being rewarded actual sales, or just to add headcount to the “buying club”.
I have to emphasize that Mannatech thus far have not been investigated by FTC regarding any violations of this sort. All investigations thus far are about the effectiveness of the product and lofty claims by their reps (since then revised).
“sooner or later it will fall apart”. I fail to see the rationale there .
among the deficiencies society has are glyconutrients. The mechanism for the change in diet is the industrialiseation of food production where fruit is picked unripe and stored before distribution. Of the essential sugars present it has been established that enzymes break down these sugars and my estimation is for respiration.
Every cell of every body needs these and everyone are billions of people. roughly a million are supplementing their diet with these after 16 years of operation,
so it would seem that it would be some eons before full subscrition would occur. You also fail to see the meaning of a legal definition as opposed to a legal opinion.
The inventory question. There is no inventory, none, nil, nix.
The product bought by ppl is consumed by them, and does not need to be retailed.
@Maddern — the only one who “prove” we need these supplements would be Mannatech, would it not?
You fail to appreciate the fact that legal opinions from the the experts in the field who are in the business to PROTECT MLMs would be just as good as legal definition.
And if everybody consumes all their inventory, there is no profit from reselling. So how *does* one get rich by “BUYING” Mannatech? Huh? Sounds like you can only profit by signing up more auto-ship participants, which runs afoul of the previous cited legal opinions by MLM legal experts.
You must be explaining it wrong, or Mannatech is much less legal than we suspected.
If this is how the majority of Mannatech distributors are making money, then they are being propped up by a small retail base. If this retail base dissappeared then the entire operation would collapse without the influx of new recruits subscribing to autoship.
An MLM business that relies on a constant influx of new recruits to subscribe to an autoship program who then have to go out and get more people signed up to the business and subscribe to autoship who then need to do the same, is ultimately unsustainable.
You guys aren’t selling a cure for cancer, and as far as I can tell Mannatech’s glyconutrients are an entirely optional dietary supplement so it’s not like marketing to every person on Earth is ever going to be feasible. There is definietly a fixed market for glyconutrients.
Quite often the purveyors of “snake oil” try to cloak themselves in the garments of science but it’s not hard to see the babble for what it is.
Have a look at what real science says about dietary supplementation.
Mannatech products are grossly over priced for what are poorly tested sugar pills. Save your money and eat some apples and bananas. Happy Christmas everybody.
Glyconutrients are not sugar pills, they are not even pills but I despair because I have been through this already.
“real science” link is making unsupported statements. Currently the recommendation for additional fruit and veg is up at unreal levels, and that is from direct assays of serum levels after injestion.
Can’t you understand that?
You see people in society with cancer and you say it is because detection methods have improved or that society is getting older. I have met one girl in her 20s with breast cancer, and another with uterine cancer and 40 years ago there were no pediatric oncologists now they are in all hospitals.
I can rest at least in the knowledge that new things are first derided, then treated with suspicion then neutrality then embraced. At least you people have had an overview of the subject, most people haven’t
You’re sure going by the book Mr. Maddern. That’s known as the “heresy” argument in Mr. Shermer’s book “Why People Believe in Weird things”. I’ve summarized it in my hub against TVI Express:
— http://hubpages.com/hub/TVI-Express-Scam-Tactic-Analysis-How-and-Why-Do-People-Fall-for-a-Scam
And you are doing EXACTLY the same thing. You can’t prove that glyconutrients is good for the body. You simply IMPLY they are good because claiming so would be against FDA rules on “nutritional supplements”. And now you try to slip in the “heresy” argument, and it is your BELIEF that glyconutrients will be eventually embraced by the public.
Nice try, but no cigar for you.
I wouldn’t smoke a cigar if you gave it to me. ok, that’s not a problem.
I didn’t say because its derided it is proved which is the implication above. as a former medical scientist you will excuse me a bit of science;
FROM The Gift: A Primal Provision Dr Reg McDaniel
BTW in 1951 2 peaches would supply a persons beta carotein (pre vit A) . Now one would need 53 peaches unless homegrown to get it.
In 1999 the USDA set the amount of additional fruit and veg at 10-12 and it is similar worldwide, the Journal of the American Medical Society who were apparently against supplements but now recommend them, about 70% of doctors take them.
Have a Great Xmas ppls
hackers have stopped me posting a number of times. I will try again.
The good glycopharmaceutical expert refers to a drink while none of mannatechs glycoproducts are liquid (sounds like a protected setup to me, believed by the likes if you) .Scientists found that the active part of Aloe vera is degraded by enzymes.
Thus I would doubt that such material would have an effect .
When the polymannose was discovered the FDA said it was a food and it could be given to anyone so three doctor conducted blind studies were done on AIDS patients and there was a reproducible reduction in symptoms of at least 67% (may have been 76%) .
The Scientists packed up their results and went to an AIDS conference but were asked to leave cos the Scientific Dogma reared its head. How could a simple sugar affect the most intractable medical problem of the 20th century?
Sound familiar
@Maddern — What sounds familiar is your “conspiracy theory”… about the world that’s is out to “get” Mannatech. And gee, even hackers are after you! Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha!
So you don’t consider Mannatech’s Ambrotose a glyco-nutrient product?
Let’s see, the picture here from the ABC article says “1 scoop”. You clearly can’t dump that down your throat, so it must be mixed with water, resulting in liquid form.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3228488
WEASEL ALERT! WEASEL ALET!
You can take ambrotose sprinkled on food or suspended in a drink of just about anything under 60 degrees, it is a blend of crude form plant parts containing glyconutrients, all ready for gut bacteria to degrade the bonds holding them.
My point about delivery is that no credible scientist would say drink when there are dry forms of delivery, rather they would say imbibed or a more general term. Not weasel words but scientific accuracy.
as a matter of illustration I take ambrotose as a capsule and many others do too… that certainly isn’t drinking.
@Maddern — you can’t deny that it CAN be taken in ‘liquid form’, which renders your explanation moot. Or do you deny writing this?
Also, looked up interesting ingredient list of Ambrotose…
Arabinogalactan (Larix decidua) (gum), rice starch, Manapol aloe vera gel extract (inner leaf gel), gum ghatti, Glucosamine HCl, and gum tragacanth.
So it’s gum, starch, gum, aloe vera, gum, glucosamine, and gum. Hmmm…
http://www.drugs.com/drp/ambrotose-powder.html
It can be taken in a drink but a scientist worth his salt would not say that about this material it is not scientificly accurate
what is so confusing about the ingredients? they are not synthetic reduction science derived, rather they are gums and so because that can get through the stomic acid bath to be digested by gut bacteria where the glyconutrients are absorbed.
I said the ingredients were interesting, not confusing. Try again.
These gums and crude plant forms yield good amounts of glyconutrients in the body and empirically have been found to resupply deficiency components in the western diet.
btw the list from that drug site is not up to date. there is also Undaria pinnatifida blade and stem ; seaweed from Tasmania and beta carotein
@Maddern — so we’re back at “it’s supposed to be good for you” again, but then all nutritional supplements are like that. *sigh*
Happy New Year, BTW.
and better sources are being sought all the time. Udaria is important because fucose and sialic acid are terminal sugars on the glycoprotein arrays on the surface of each and every human cell .
for instance the glycoproteins that determine ABO blood group are a substitution of n acetyl galactomine for galactose ( that’s A and B and O is a lack of both ) and they are flanked by fucose.
And a HAPPY NEW YEAR to you all and about your last, they do.
(work) and all nutritional suppliments are not like that. some of the very popular advertised antioxidant drinks scored a sweet 0% in serum ORAC (oxygen radical absorption capacity when tested by independent laboratories as delivery by source company
Also synthetic vitamins are not what they are cracked up to be.
What I find interesting that you people seem to think science is static and that new discoveries aren’t possible therefore anything like this is a scam.
It’s a good thing the Nobel Committee doesn’t share your bent .
There are actually 3 or 4 Nobel prizes in this technology.
I am a bit skeptical when there are not enough independent confirmation of the “new discoveries” you cited, esp. when most of those confirmations came from Mannatech itself.
Well I suppose that people who contributed to the uncovering of glyconutrients may have been co-opteded into mannatech and those who remain on the periphery.
Do you still maintain the stance that glyconutrients do nothing?
That quote above is from someone who was a forensic examiner but early on was asked to conduct a number of blind,doctor controlled studies on stabilized aloe vera inner leaf gel on AIDS patients.
I have already cited that I believe.
He continued to investigate the material and has found how polymannose changes the viral coat on the hiv invective particle, do you want a quote about that?
That is the problem here ..how do you represent scientific advances.
I have a summary of some research collated by an oncologist (cancer doctor) amongst the difficulties is listed that if glyconutrients are used (as a therapeutic tool) then they would be considered drugs …. what a lot of cocky shit, I reckon I know who wrote that, or at least who paid for it.
I have heard a numner of eminent doctors on cd talking about cases from toxic shock to pregnancy, stroke repair to try telling them these are sugar pills.
The problem, Mr. Maddern, is that you can’t SAY they actually do something. That would make it a drug and get you and Mannatech into trouble with the American FDA. That’s how they got into trouble with Texas in the first place.
You are trying to do your darnedest to IMPLY they do something. That impresses me. However, being a skeptic, I’m still not that impressed with Mannatech products. 🙂
So you don’t accept the synopsis I posted 24th Dec, of a specific glyconutrient on the macrophage cell when it phagocytoses aloe polymannose, and when there are billions of macrophages in each body do you not agree that it is doing something?
Wow, what an interesting topic this has become.
I used to think that MLM scams were about as rock-bottom as you could get in terms of destroying lives, until I read up on a drink called MonaVie.
Not only are these types of people trying to scam money out of family, friends and strangers, but they also claim that these products can “help cure and prevent cancer”, amongst other things.
Google stuff like:
mannatech cancer
monavie cures cancer
monavie cures diabetes
mannatech cures down syndrome
… and you’ll see what I mean.
There’s also an article floating around Can Mannatech cure its legal concerns? that dates back to 2006, but who knows how long prior to that they have been pitching this crap.
I rarely wish bad luck to anyone, but to anyone pushing these products with the false claims of being able to cure certain conditions, I hope you suffer from the condition you claim it cures, and very slowly at that. You people truly are the scum of the Earth, and bring the meaning of scam to a whole new level.
There are some more colourful words I’d love to use, but I doubt this post would be approved if I used them.
@Oz (off-topic):
If the discussion about “glyconutrients” continues at the same pace, it may be an advantage with the NUMBER in front of the comments. Such a method will make it easier for us to find our way back to an old comment.
I asked for the same type of solution in another blog, when a thread about “CarbonCopyPro” passed 200 comments. Here is the solution (in Norwegian):
http://www.glabladet.no/2010/07/hvordan-vise-nummeret-til-hver-kommentar-i-wordpress/
(How to display the number of each comment in WordPress)
The method is particularly suitable if the comments “derails” from the article itself.
@Maddern — you’re trying to project ONE ingredient’s ability to act on a “few cells in a lab” all the way to “good for your body”. That’s a completely different scale and unproven.
You have clearly not had any medical research experience. Human cells in culture is a very direct model for what happens in the blood.
Further these are not cells cultured since 1951 but newly harvested macrophages.
Would you like some animal studies?
So here we have aloe polymannose injected into the abdomen of test cats where they and others had had injected tumour cells of the sarcoma type. In the time it took the others to die the test cats showed those figures.
And Vince, time you grew up!
I have no doubt that David Maddern is quite convinced of the benefits of Mannatech products, however the fact remains that conventional scientific means have not been used to show the reality of these benefits.
The fact that Mannatech uses a marketing strategy, namely MLM, which to many people is utterly discredited, just tends to increase any incredulity regarding Mannatech and it’s products.
@Maddern — neither do you have any background in glycobiology or similar pharmacology. We know you know your stuff about Mannatech already. However, familiarity with Mannatech products only makes you a Mannatech expert, not a glycobiology expert.
Perhaps you feel that it makes you an expert in that subject, however, I see that as simply you know your marketing material.
Like I said before, I was a Medical Scientist (for 11 years ) and have 2 degrees in biology. Fact is I could relate human cases but I am not allowed to.
I understand one is not allowed to say in the US that “water cures thirst”
Thinking more on Vinces effort above I don’t think it applies to me because,
1. this is not a scam
2. I have made no claim of cure
But it gives me the opportunity to write about why I take/eat and why I think that I won’t slowly die of cancer.
I am a 57yo caucasion and I haven’t gone grey , which is down to the folate stores in my body as I heard a researcher on the radio say that when cells run out of folate they stop adding melanin (and with my history I could understand ) as I have good folate intake through the plant bound vitamins and minerals, and even before I knew about them I supplemented folate and b12 for DNA repair in situ.
I also maintain an optimal antioxidant level (ORAC 37.4%) through the products. I also take a sport blend of Mexican wild yam. Last year I seakayaked 20 something k on a lake wih no muscle soreness then or after. Due to the Mex wild yam I believe my hormones are all working well.
My immune system works very well. I have had a spot come up on my arm that was gone next time I looked. have had a cancer removed from my back that I meditated to encspsulate it. The report came back that they were fully differentiated sqamous cell cacinoma. cells totally encapsulated. (I don’t know!)
So I have DNA protected from the 10,000 est. oxadative hits pet day ppl get and my DNA repair is fully enabled.
I also believe I have over a billion adult stem cells floating around my peripheral blood due to the aloe polymannose I get in the glyconutrient preparation I imbibe .
About monavie this was one of the products mannatech ppl joined their network and gave their address as connex labs and the products were assayed and while grape juice affected serum orac, monavie scored zero. It appeats a blatant lie and relying that fashion can best the regulators.
As far as mannatechs marketing stuff I have not been using that. what I have submitted is decidedly extracurricular.
Boris, perhaps you were writing when I quoted that cat research (it says marine but it should be murine, silly phone ) but that is purely conventional science, there is no fact about it.
and about MLM people go off half cocked due to naivety . They think it is what it isn’t due to lack of knowledge.
I know you ppl like using similies and in this country a radio bloke was villified for saying someone ‘would lose weight on concentration camp’ and ppl assumed he meant a Nazi death camp. we had concentration camps for asylum seekers
anyway I gloss over those …
@K Chang the cat model is used and their cells were removed they found the same substances emanating from the macrophage.
I am a 52 year old Caucasian who also happens to have a couple of degrees. I have never taken a vitamin supplement or any other supplement for that matter. I have never had skin or any other type of cancer, despite living under the hot Australian sun.
The last day off work for me was in May 1980 when I had the flu. On Friday I swam almost 3ks and played a competitive game of tennis without any muscle soreness. On Saturday, I met a few friends in the pub. We lingered a little longer than expected and I probably drank 15 beers (maybe more, it’s a little blurry).
I totally attribute my excellent health to my regular consumption of large quantities of beer in the company of my good buddies.
PS I had intimate relations with a lovely lady for about two hours on Sunday morning, also without the help of any Pfizer products.
So as you can see, I treat personal medical testimonials with the respect I give to cheap toilet paper.
That’s the best you can do?
Me needing to grow up is irrelevant to the low life “associates” out there who claim these sugar pills cure cancer and Down syndrome.
I noticed how you weren’t even bothered or disturbed by that, nor did you deny that it’s true.
Tells me all I need to know.
For the third and last time they are not sugar pills and they aren’t even pills and they are gums and so on so they can be protected from stomach acid. They don’t cure anything they simply bring your body system back to where it should be.
Your needing to grow up is related to your wishing ppl die a slow death
You’re right, them sugar gum pills don’t cure anything. Doesn’t stop Mannatech permitting its associates to make those claims, not even the lawsuits.
Mannatech doesn’t allow associates to say cure, mitigate, or heal or any other absolute, but it is due to regulators and not what associates know. They concentrate on wellness.
Flinders Uni did a study on glyconutrients and normal people and found more mental activity reflected in cognition, and improvement in the improvable 8 of 10 biomarkers of aging . Seems to me that is consistent with stem cell activity.
Vince, I wrote something before re “tell me” but it didn’t get up. I suggest you read the posts
btw I am a seriel blood donor and my ferritin ( iron stores) were down so I got some of mannatechs immunstart which as well as gammaglobulin and glyconutrients has lactoferrin at human amounts and my ferritin went from 17 to 43 r and after that I gave my 104th unit of whole blood
Michael Spector on TED calls the nutrition supplement industry “the Big Placebo” (as opposed to big Pharma), as most multivitamins simply turns your urine darker. 😀
Link to Youtube Video:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7OMLSs8t1ng&ei=NyEiTbDuHIKB8gbagP3rDQ&usg=AFQjCNE4_tF3fGJs575WibhjK9EGJxtI8w&sig2=rltGF6mhXRjDgqEFqLchKw
@David Maddern:
Here are your stats (Nov. 17 to Jan. 3):
November: 2 comments / 2 days (1 per day)
December: 26 comments / 16 days (1.625 per day)
January: 13 comments / 3 days (4.33 per day)
The activity suggests first that you are most active at the full moon or new moon, like werewolves? 🙂
Activity then changed to be more active at the holidays?
The activity then gives the impression of having become a habit or an “obsessive behavior”?
Is this some kind of side effects of “glyconutrients”, or are there other explanations for the pattern of activity?
My comment is not meant seriously. It is just an example of that high activity may give a wrong impression. You will probably dislike if someone calculates the statistics in other areas, such as how many reliable sources you have referred to, or the lack of sources.
@M_NORWAY ROFL good one
@K_CHANG. Well isn’t that a sweeping generalization
I can’t agree as I said before about 18 months ago a meta study was in the Am.Journal of Nutrition that pulled together the results of 47 papers on vitamins and their conclusion was that ‘people who take synthetic vitamins have a higher mortality ‘
So it isn’t just darker urine is it.
I see you use comedians to justify your position, where does this bloke spring from?
There is simply no current credible scientific opinion in the field that recommends no supplementation. it is just a matter of what supplements one takes.
Is he a drug walla?
About the placebo effect. This occurs if there expectation of an effect. Scientists design experiments to exclude this effect so that all the effect is down to the condition or substance under test.
The only reason they try hard to exclude it is because it is real. There nothing wrong with harnessing the placebo effect in real life. Glyconutrient and aloe polymannose show results way beyond placebo effect.
LOL he’s a comedian? *double face palm*
@K. Chang – Many thanks for the link, some interesting videos there I just checked out.
@M_Norway If you want to look at the psychology of the situation of my posts I would own up to a displacement activity.
btw there is a naturopath who looks at live blood and she days she can pick ppl .on glyconutrients as their cells have a halo around them.
This is consistent with the dose response changes of sialic acid (one of the terminal sugars) residue length that scientists saw was proportional to amount consumed. I believe that this was before the FDA ruled that these were food.
@Maddern — maybe you should do some research before calling other people “comedians”.
Michael Specter has been a technology writer for the New Yorker since 1998, and has won multiple awards for his reporting on public health and technology. Before that he was correspondent for the world-famous New York Times.
http://www.michaelspecter.com/about/
Haven’t you done enough damage to your credibility already?
I didn’t call him a comedian I said you use comedians to support your case (ref to Pen & Teller ) and where did this bloke spring from?
So he is a press man, hardly someone you would go to for up to date nutritional information … and you pick a glib comment of his that incidentaly is 10 to 20 years out of date .. but could you expect that, as the press thrives on controversy not facts.
@David Maddern:
It wasn’t psychology, it was “behavioral research”. I’m looking for a suitable lecture material to the next Congress for behavioral scientists. Your comments seem to contain lots of raw material that may be of interest to groups of behavioral scientists.
Here, you start to slip out a bit in relation to the theme of behavioral research. “Naturopath” and “halo around them”?
A good optician may be able to correct such vision problems.
I also agree with you that using humor is an unfair tactic. It reminds a lot of shooting an unarmed man – “he wasn’t armed with any weapon”.
1) Penn and Teller’s show BULL**** is a serious piece of journalism, presented in a comedic/insulting way. Even the host here, Oz, refered to P&T on this. Besides, you seem to have no beef with the information itself, just with the way it was presented.
Dishonest debate tactic: ad hominem attack, attacking the presentation/presenter of the information instead of the information itself.
2) Again, you have done no research. He was the guy who dug up information on how Africa is used to test HIV Vaccines. He probably know more about public health than you do.
Dishonest debate tactic: ad hominem attack, attacking qualifications of the authority instead of the information itself
Got any dishonest debate tactics you wish to try, Mr. Maddern?
I am not experienced in debate I just know a lot about cellular health and I am amazed that you people even seem to reject the logic .
1. fruit and veg intake A above usual diet is recommended.
2. your diet is -A from optimal meaning you have a surplus of oxidation, alcohol and pollution damage to DNA and other structures, which is a precancer state (when cells divide control genes may not go into the right cell)
3. she’ll be right. ‘we’ll do what everyone else does, cos they’re ok’
Meanwhile they are saying that deficiencies cause changes to structure and function, which changes gene expression and gut flora, which changes excretion which results in lowered life expectancy, lower than their parents. Whacko!
And the conventional way to do it is with man made chemicals that are proven to be toxic in their workup.
Now is that playing the man, no.
Look, there is a huge problem with the status quo and influential people like newsmen should do better than tout stuff about 20 years out if date. But when it comes down to it, their primary illegance is go their editor, not facts or truth.
@David Maddern:
1. Can you provide us with evidence of “award winning legal system” and “model passed”?
2. Please explain “does not need to be retailed”? Is the product retailed at all to “normal customers”?
From your comments 072, 076, 081 (December 16, 17, 20).
If you use such expressions as “award winning”, “patented business model”, “approved by authorities”, “model passed” and other such expressions – please provide evidence that this is true (don’t just TELL us)?
3. “Glyconutrients”:
From now on I’m going to call it “sugar pills” although technically it is “sugar and gum capsules”. Google auto-translate has problems with other expressions. The word “glyconutrients” isn’t a common word outside Mannatech.
@M_Norway
Forgot to reply to this when I saw it, I’ll have a look at implementing it this weekend.
Although I didn’t expect so much discussion on glyconutrients or Mannatech from one article investigating a co-op of Mannatech, I think the discussion will be useful to someone researching Mannatech.
Personally a lot of it is going over my head so I haven’t really participated in the discussion but it should prove useful to those searching for information re. the effectiveness of Mannatech’s product range.
The term “award winning legal system”:
The business model won a statue of a beaten copper one time or another. Or maybe it was “.. IN beaten copper”?
Mannatech is a public company and all that stuff is in the public domain, I am happy that these things are as I wrote but if you can’t find it I will try at this end.
I don’t remember writing ‘patented business model’
About the natutopath and halos around glycolated cells. This highly refractive layer was always a problem when trying to study the cell surface. In the lab lectins were used to remove this layer.
As it turns out this has been found to be very important.
One of the John Hopkins Scientists has been quoted as saying this is the future and we won’t understand Developmental Biology or Urology or Immunology until we understand Glycobiology.
John Rolling, who is a former patent attorney who was ic of biotech.US patent office and asked on retirement what was the one thing that beat all others and he nominated glyconutrients.. his wife apparently had good results with them too.
All you ppl who say they don’t work have no evidence that they don’t, its at best hung on an hypothesis. Fear not though, others have done it before you.
first when the active principle of aloe was found to be a sugar chain they said bah, sugars aren’t therapeutic and are all converted to glucose for energy production
then Solveg (Belgian co.) were after a aduvant for a chicken vaccine against a t cell cancer and the APM took vaccine takeup rates from 63% to 98%
then French biologists demonstrated misc. sugars on protein extensions on cell surface
then they said no human enzymes degrade beta bonds
then it was demonstrated that bacteria do it and dietary intake of glyconutrients affect glycolation on cell surfaces
so it has gone on and on, and people continue to get results when their bodies resume proper function.
This is just perfect. When requested for evidence to support the claims from Mannatech, you give the customers the responsibility to find evidence that your products don’t work (and if not, any effect can appearantly be claimed in the marketing material).
That’s like saying prove that God doesn’t exist. I mean, look at everything around us, GOD created it!!! If you can’t prove that he didn’t, then he must have.
I think you see my point.
YOU show US evidence that they “work”.
Hmmm… isn’t that “proving a negative” or “the heresy argument”? Or is that considered “false dilemma”?
Whatever it is, it is ANOTHER use of dishonest debate technique.
In Europe it is permitted to argue that “water cures thirst” because thirst is not a disease, defect or deformity. The laws allow for all common words and phrases, but it does not allow claims that supplements can cure diseaselike conditions. People rarely use the word “cure” when talking about thirst.
We are quite agreed that you probably have billions of things “floating around” in the bloodstream. Most of us would probably guess at other things than stem cells. 🙂
I have personally rodent ulser gone for good pterigie. sorry bout spelling but dead damaged yellowish stuff in corner of eyes.. gone
also my bodys reaction to alcohol is different …used to get bad headache then chuck for up to 24hrs
now can just drink and sleep wake up drunk etc no headache
don’t get colds anymore may be a bit mucous in evening, gone next day
apart from that I don’t know but then again you don’t have to .. I was healthy ( state of no obvious disease) now I have wellness
then there was the macrophage evidence, each singular multiply by billions
then there was the Norman sarcoma cat study where cats given poly mannose by injection into the abdomen survived significantly longer than those that didn’t get it
I am prohibited from giving other human results
@David Maddern:
1. Can we agree on one thing – that the supplement has no medical effect at all?
2. It can certainly be demonstrated placebo effects as with any other “sugar pills”, but the supplement itself doesn’t cure any disease-like conditions at all?
3. Stories of such effects is necessary only to justify the high price – very few would use the product as “sugar pills without any effect. ”
2 “trick-questions” and 1 statement. They tests how well your instincts works to avoid obvious traps, or if you go directly into such traps. The statement will only add a little extra pressure on you.
1 and 2. no, but I am not allowed to relate stories. A physician of 49years experience says that he has seen more miracles in 5 months of using this than in the 49 years before in diverse areas of medicine.
They modulate the immune system and improve intercell communication, etc if that has medical sequalae then thats as may be.
where did you get price information ?
Btw Leading economists say that the wellness revolution is unfolding as people are ‘ sick and tired of being sick and tired ‘ with a failed medical and pharmaceutical model and mannatech is at the forefront of this, despite what you people write.
In fact it is streets ahead of its nearest rival, which is hard to find, with patents on all its food based products, of which glyconutrients are a component of only some.
David, so you refuse to share any links or evidence because
errr. right. Thanks for the entertainment.
Oh, sure, another sweeping statement with no evidence to back them up.
The only one that said that was Paul Zane Pilzer, who is more about healthcare plans than nutrition. That doesn’t stop him from selling a book that tell people to use direct selling and franchising to cash in this industry, of course. Did he mention he runs several of those healthcare companies too? (Zane Benefits)
And in any case, he doesn’t vouch for the efficacy of any of the products, merely that they are contributing to the industry. In fact, one of the items he rather liked was the Pharmanex anti-oxidant scanner, which doesn’t promise anything except you’ll test better.
I’ll admit he knows about economy, but using him as an endorsement for Mannatech is like TVI Express the scam using Warren Buffett as endorsement just because Warren Buffett owns a MLM (called Pampered Chef) and TVI Express claims to be MLM.
So you agree that the medical and pharmaceutical model OS broken ?
@vince that’s right, if I am deemed non compliant then I lose my mannatech accounts. the TGA is watching
@Maddern — I think you didn’t read me correctly. All that books says is ONE economist thinks so-called “wellness” industry has growth potential. Don’t draw too much conclusions from it.
@K_Chang Well I know it has huge potential, I don’t need economists for that.
I did read you correctly .
I was expecting a serve for that broad generalization. You seem to jump on misreadings (yours) and let the big ones go through to the keeper.(cricket analogy)
Couldn’t agree more, especially after David’s last few comments.
I actually now hope that anyone researching Mannatech reads all his comments.
Anyone who still believes it’s a good business idea after reading all this, well… you know how it goes…
@MAddern — I thought YOU are the one with gross generalizations. And you cite a guy with generalizations which even YOU find to be “duh!” So what exactly WAS your point? Duh?
Which point?
That the medical/pharmaceutical model is sanctified and dysfunctional and is set (on current rates) to corrupt the finances of western countries in not many years, while the people they are supposed to fix get sicker.
howzat!
@David Maddern:
You gave good answers to the 2 “trick questions”.
Q1. “Can we agree on one thing -”
A1. “No.”
Good answer. I asked if we could agree on something. You don’t have to agree with others’ claims. Agreement is more about perspective than of fact. There’s no need to share the same perspective as someone else.
Q2. “… the supplement itself doesn’t cure any disease-like conditions at all?”
A2. “No.”
Good answer, but I think you got lucky. You’re in deep water if you claim that a dietary supplement cures disease-like conditions. For dietary supplements, we should preferably use some other terms than “cures” and “heals”.
I totally agree with your answer – “No, the supplement itself doesn’t cure any disease-like conditions at all”.
Shifting your “point” again?
It’s one thing to claim wellness industry is good, which *may* bolster your position that Mannatech will ride the wave of wellness “revolution” to success. (Which in no way proves that Mannatech’s products do anything, any way)
It’s something else entirely to claim that medical and pharma industry have made the civilizations sicker. One doesn’t prove or disprove the other.
@M_Norway how’s this statement
Rarely do drugs cure anything either, the vast majority seek to remove the symptoms, or suppress other drugs side effects.
What do you call penicillin and similar antibiotics then? Antibiotics “cure” infections, and genetics are leading to new anti-viral drugs, such as the ones used on anti-AIDS cocktail now.
And that statement? Sounds like it’s paraphrased from Kevin Trudeau’s book “Natural Cures”. The exact quote is
However, Kevin Trudeau is a convicted felon famous for disparaging the US FDA and the drug industry. I wouldn’t take his words too seriously. Dr. Pilzer would be far more credible “supporter”. You’re in a retrograde, man. 🙂
Oh, and here’s ABC’s 20/20 exposing the Kevin Trudeau fraud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN5ihrECJms
Interesting you chose antibiotics. Penicillins interfere with the laying down of the cell wall of bacteria, and this murine sacculus only occurs in gram positive bacteria. Note that they reproduce by division so this is where they are hit.
So all the antibiotic does is suspend the othetwise exponental rise in number and the immune mops it up.
Annual deaths in USA (Source apparently General Statistician)
deaths
106,000 non error morbid effect of drugs (note lethal dose of morphine included here )
80,000 infections in hospitals
20,000 other errors in hospitals
12,000 unnecessary surgery
7,000 medical errors in hospital
plus
199,000 deaths from same causes in outpatient
total 424,000 annual deaths equivalent to 3 jumbos crashing per day all year
Tell me now drugs don’t have a sanctified position in society. 2030 all Gross National Product going to ‘healthcare’
more than 196,000 die, 2.2 M injured by adverse reaction to drugs
greatest demographic increasing drug use 2-5
You know what David this is getting quite monotonous now. You’re as bad as someone preaching their religion to everyone.
Do you honestly believe you’ve convinced anyone here who believes otherwise? If you don’t believe in using drugs, antibiotics, etc, good for you. You’ve made your point, we’ve read it, now it’s time to move on.
I do believe in using antibiotics, when they are warranted, but I suspect a large need is caused by the decay of immune systems due to the society wide deficiency of glyconutrients
Actually, it’s more like an annoying door to door salesperson who just doesn’t get the hint.
Ok, you’re from Mannatech and you have stuff to sell. Thanks for the info, we’ll let you know if we’re interested.
Have a nice day.
Vince I wouldnt want to talk you out of what faith you have but putting more evidence up bores you ?
The way the two are related is that, the public is demanding a better system. Witness that there are more visits to alternate practitioners than conventional per year in the US.
I take issue with your “In no way proves Mannatech’s products work”. It would seem to me that the things you have question marks on are
1. glyconutrients (which are called ‘Essential Sugars’ in Harpers Biochemidtry, a book doctors use, as long ago as 2002)
2.the network marketing aspect of propagation
But Mannatech has a swag of,products,
_antioxidant gets serum oxygen radical absorption capacity to 37.4%
(highest attainable,as internal systems tone down if there is more in the diet.
_plant bound vitamins,and minerals when ores and synthetic vitamins ( the usual ‘multivitamins’) have been associated with higher mortality.
_plant sterol preparation that supplies hormone precursor
_another which addresses chronic pain and reduces post traumatic muscle soreness.
_a sports drink that has been proved to increase the partial O2 and endurance
_an immune start mix (described above ) that increased my ferritin levels den low to moderate
_ omega3 preparation that supplies the right combination of DHA: EPA
There are more, and Mannatech standardizes its products so they all have the same activity, one bottle to the next and seeks more effective sources continually. They have independent certification of that.
What did you do? Copy Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis
Sounds scary, until you put the numbers into perspective. That’s out of how many patients that goes through the hospitals? Hmmm…
http://www.aha.org/aha/resource-center/Statistics-and-Studies/fast-facts.html
That’s 72.9 million, call it 73 million.
424,000 alleged deaths, but only half from of hospitals. AND that is out of 73 million people admitted. Not so scary now, is it? That’s like what? 0.3%?
Now let’s understand the numbers you quoted…
That “106000 non error morbid effect of drugs” stat? Adverse reactions in patient that have never indicated prior allergic reactions. In other words, nothing could be done about it.
That “80000 infections in hospitals” stat? Your chances of getting infected OUTSIDE is even WORSE. So by itself it sounds scary but doesn’t mean anything.
BTW, that 106000 number came from a JAMA article published in 2000. Don’t know where you got the outpatient numbers from.
They demand a DIFFERENT system, which could NOT be proven to be better. BIG difference.
All that certification proves is you have consistent ingredient / manufacturing process. I’ve been through ISO9000 certification myself. It proves nothing about the efficacy of your products.
Your misunderstanding
I wasn’t asking you to prove the negative, but saying that the sum total of you objections was an unsupportedr hypothesis.
My question about where you got the price information hasn’t been answered . You called the products expensive but as far as I can see only had $110 as a price.
This is the monthly supply of a product I haven’t mentioned yet it is a modified whey material which has 4 discrete modes of action, being an appetite suppressor, branching amino acids to help lay down more protein, suppressor of the ACE hormone that stimulates laying down of fat, and stimulates burning of fat for energy.
A month of glyconutrients at the maintenance level is $AUS 59 or about $2 per day.
The sum total of our objection is that YOU are using an unsupported hypothesis: “Mannatech’s ingredients are good for you”.
But, once again, you throw all out because you don’t understand the ubiquitous and profound relationship of the essential 8 glyconutrients, and the body.
for instance the lean mass to fat ratio product has been though 2 double blind. placebo controlled, crossover projects with about apparently 80 ppl in each and all except the 2 who left early changed their lean mass to fat ratio such that when ppl ‘Diet’ they lose fat but also muscle and water and bone mass, those on the test substance preserved their lean mass, and tended to selectively lose fat.
The antioxidant has been through placebo controlled studies that determined normal people take 2 capsules per day, whereas smokers need 3 to get to the same level. Interestingly, gives a handle on the oxidant load that nicotine addicts suffer.
Do you still persist in putting under question ALL Mannatech products?
If you think that you are more likely to pick up an infection from outside hospital than in you are mistaken.
Let me ask, when one is gravely ill, where does one go?
Have you heard of MRSA (Methacillin Resistant Staphlococus aureus ) whole hospitals have been demolished and buried.
Added to immunosupressed people, very sick people are a perfect bed for opportunistic bacteria and moulds.
It is empirically found, that hospitals are a good place to.pick up an infection, personally I think 8000 is as expected.
Another “You don’t understand us” presented as “argument”. It does start to sound repetitive. Scammers use it. Denialists use it. And you’ve used it several times here.
Only two, eh? Sponsored by Mannatech itself, no doubt. If Andrew Wakefield can get his fake paper published in the Lancet, anything’s possible.
All that proves is smokers don’t absorb antioxidants as non-smokers.
No, only the way you’re presenting them.
I have no doubt somebody would buy them thinking they’d do something. Thinking, however, isn’t reality.
Has nothing to do with efficacy of Mannatech products, esp. since they don’t cure anything. Completely irrelevant.
As for MRSA, it is not buried. It is mostly Asia and Europe. There was a story about two months back… a Taiwanese travel reporter and her entourage was caught in a terrorist attack in India. One of the photographers was hit seriously.
When he was stablized and flew back to Taiwan local hospital found he had MRSA, probably contracted during his stay in the Indian hospital. Some heavy dose of special antibiotics killed that.
Ever wonder, if pharmas had NOT developed the new antibiotics where would we be now? Or developed vaccines for the flu and such?
I had never heard of Trudeau but the quoted panel is unremarkable. Just about any General Practitioner will agree with that, with perhaps an expression of hope that there are promising areas.
What they probably won’t agree with is glycolation of cells and other functions of glyconutrient is the key to a lot of problems.
That is due to the fact that the only nutrional training they got in their training was a disparaging half a day, and subsequently no information has come to them.
Perhaps this is somehow due to the patents that limit dosing of these (in combination) to one company, that is not a drug company.
However, there are now more scientific papers around this subject than one can reasonably read. This is one huge area of research.
What some people require is placebo controlled, blind studies, and these will come, although they are designed for toxic substances, not on foods.(I am working on one.)
Since you quoted a very similar quote, I guess it wasn’t too remarkable. 😀
Oh, sure ANOTHER use of “they don’t understand us” argument. Albeit phrased a bit more circumspectly.
Maybe you should do like this guy and list a bunch of normally stuff that has your supposed glyconutrients you may be a bit more believable.
http://www.glyconutria.com/natural-glyconutrients.html
Why should I repeat what’s on that site, hope it was worthwhile reading for you.
I wouldn’t risk writing what’s on that site I reckon.the TGA or FDA would be interested.
For instance A woman had the part of her brain grow back .. I dare not continue that.
ahahahha. I love how all the “references” come from within the same website. Classic.
As for the normally stuff the risk is that you don’t get what you need.
1. remember you need the glyconutrients in natural gums and things to get through your acid bath in the stomach. He mentions using xylose instead of table sugar.
I would wonder if it is synthetic ( probably not much change to the solvent xylene, and it comes in big tubs), but in any case while it might help with the caries infection by starving the bugs, just as easy to nuke them with alcohol mouthwash.
2. there is no mention of freshness and we know enzymes break them down pretty quickly.
so the convenience of allyear containment of what is missing suits me.
Hey David, can you show me a pic of Glyconutrients in their natural form? I’m interested to see..
@Vince, send a postcard to locked bag 2, Launceston, TAS, AUSTRALIA and I will send you a sample.
I can’t accept your assertion that a double blind placebo controlled crossover experiment would be flawed because Mannatech was involved, you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist.
This technology was patented by others then licensed exclusively by mannatech, and was conducted on Mannatech associates. It was followed by an open label experiment. Peoples results subsequently are consistent with the trial results.
An extra thing was noticed by participants in and out of the trial and that is after going off it they continue to change their lean mass to fat ratio.
doctors have told people,not to take these things. They are foods after all. Thankfully newly trained doctors have been taught about it.
Scanners, Denialists use the same methods as someone who is fair dinkum/ genuine. What a surprise.
That’s not what I was asking. I was asking for a pic of Glyconutrients in their natural form. Simple request, which you can’t provide. Thought so.
I am merely a skeptic who demands full disclosure in any supposed “evidence”. Mannatech has a stake in demonstrating effectiveness of their own product.
Thus, the only true validation of their results would be Mannatech’s study REPEATED by several unrelated third-parties and the results match (or are within reasonable error margin). One or two studies done by Mannatech themselves doesn’t really prove anything.
Any data can be spun to suit an agenda. Just the other day there was a story about “Smartphone market share for November 2010”. The same set of data spawned 4 separate headlines:
Android Beats Apple in Market Share — LA Times
iPhone Holds Off Android in US Market Share — Mac Rumors
Blackberry still dominates Enterprise Market — BerryTimes
Android Leapfrogs iPhone in US Smartphone Market — PC Mag
Which is true? They all are… sort of.
@Vince mate, I do not have photomicrographic equipment here and that is what it would need cos is is fine sintered material, fawn in colour
No longer at Uni where I could have got some beautiful ones.
@K_Chang one does not spin a scientific study .. have I said something about newsmen? If you get your information from headlines you would be seriously confused.
If you get to studies from scientific sources before marketing gets to it you would not dismiss scientific studies so easily.
Here’s a good read about these sugar pills
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/mannatech.htm
he’s as narrow minded as some of you guys, and boy can u see regulation at work there.
The narrow hypotheses that they use to support their anti position are plain to see .. destroyed in the stomach …roughage for bacteria etc
thanks for the link
And you are not marketing? 😀
Not in the sense that I mean it.
I am relating things that I am satisfied are true, within (I hope) the regulation that is in force. When a doctor of 1/2 a century’s experience says ‘this is it, this is what you’be been looking for.’ I tend to agree with him.
On the other side what conspiracy could collect all these people to say what’s happened to them, and what else could have caused the changes I had in myself (rodent ulcers require surgery to remove normally) and that I have seen in other people (off limits to relate)
Sam Caster is right when he said ‘we know they work, and science is now filling in how they work’
It is remarkable the Aloe polymannose stuff but the scientist who has done the work relates some cases that are amazing in the context of conventional disease management.
It also stands to reason that mannose has such an effect as it is an important component at the cellular level, and what other sugar has salvage proteins ready to recycle unused molecules of it.
It is clear that once you know about this technology, cancer loses its scariness and is plainly an immune insufficiency disease,
The conventional medical response that poisons dividing cells kills the immune system and this is applied up to the edge of someones life sometimes, and sometimes even over it.
If they could just use this nutrition before chemotherapy they would have better outcomes.
btw,if mannatechs legal people send a cease and desist letter, ask in a return letter what specific words and phrases are they referring to.
Why would Mannatech’s legal people send a cease and desist?
You’re not claiming Mannatech products cure cancer, are you?
Hmmm where have I seen that before.
It’s a few years old, but this video shows 20/20 with “undercover hidden cameras” (oooh spooky) at one of those sugar pill sales meetings.
They first give the disclaimer that Ambrotose doesn’t cure anything, and then a few minutes later, a guy is talking about some chick being breast cancer free after a few months.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Video/videoLogin?id=3227372
Good, I’d hate to see you slip up. 😀
Yet when other noted glycobiologists post opinions that they (i.e. Mannatech ingredients) do no good (such as those noted in Wikipedia), you dismiss them.
Are you sure you don’t have some kind of blindspot, Mr. Maddern? Namely a pro-Mannatech blindspot?
No promanna blindspot but I am aware that the wiki glycoexpert was not writing scientifically, was naive to science in the area, and I therefore conclude that it was a drug company marketers writing.
I will reiterate that these people see their jobs at risk, as witnessed by the missive they produced for their peers, saying that if people realized that their sickness is down to nutrition they are undermined.
Entirely understandable, if immoral, that they try to delay this process as much as possible.
It is very practiced in the area to attack the intrinsic uncertainty of science in the media. This happened with denying the lethal damage smoking does, then that human activity affects the climate, and further in denying climate change science.
So while I have a scientific history I can afford to be discriminatory after learning so much about the role of these sugars in the body, cells, plant biology, selective pressure for cancer etc
About cease and desist I don’t presume to know how lawyers minds work, and I don’t absolutely know if I, or Pipa or anyone else have crossed the line and ventured onto stickypaper.
While I recognised I think the offending thing on the linked ratbag site, I wouldn’t have a clue about what it would be on this site.
hey guys I just found a level headed site http://WWW.glyconutrientsreference.com
Geez Vince
‘They first give the disclaimer that ambrotose doesn’t cure things then a few minutes later a guy is talking about some chick being breast cancer free after a few months ‘
Have you not learned anything from this? It goes like this
1.Ambrotose helps the immune system (amongst other things )
2. the immune system knocks off cancer
Also a hidden camera is not a legitament way of disseminating such information as no members of the public may be there and in which case I understand there is no violation if associates are talking amongst themselves .
There you go again… Head of glycobiology departments said Mannatech products do no good, and you claim they are a part of conspiracy out to dismiss Mannatech.
Instead of attacking what they say, you attack their motivation instead. And you claim you have no pro-Mannatech blindspot? Or perhaps you have a blindspot toward your blindspot too? 😀
Correction: Ambrotose ALLEGEDLY helps immune system.
Let’s look at,immune function.
the macrophage interrogates a structure to find if it is self by reading the glycoprotein code or lack of. If code is corrupt, macrophage injects porphorin to kill the cell, independent of viral, mould or human nature, then releases hormones to bring T cells, and B cells in lymph nodes to remember the code pattern as found. They in turn secrete antigens to stick to such code, for other macrophages to engulf the combination.
Aloe polymannose enhances T and B cells, secretes interferon which is a macrophage activator and secretes tumour necrosing factor for tumour destruction.
please tell me what part of that is not enhancing the immune system.
Glyconutrients supplied in the diet help each new cell to have appropriate glycoprotein codes, and has Aloe polymannose and all its functions as well
You have billions of macrophages in your body, and the 20% of blood cells called neutrophils are ready to change to macrophages if called.(by hormones interacting with their glycoproteins )
hope that is clear
errata with my last, not neutrophils but monocytes at 6-8% of normal blood white cells turn into macrophages
re; “There you go again ”
You want me to attack what he was alleged to say and as I say I don’t believe he wrote it …” They don’t do anything ” …..cocky shit .. they have fundamental effects ref my entry above
‘except flatulance’ flatulance or gas is caused by bacteria and moulds, the self same beasts that can degrade beta bonds that hold the glyconutrients for absorption into pump sites that occur on the bowel wall
done all that before
Finally, it was peace and quiet?
I have good and bad news …
Good news:
I think we finally got rid of him. His batteries ran out of power after 50 comments in 12 days.
Bad news:
Someone have told him about Duracell batteries. 🙂
moi ? Merely waiting for the next misguided criticism
Since you’ve been missing me I thought that explain my position wrt pharmaceutical drugs.
I have taken them when prescribed but don’t need any at the moment (because I have stalkers and hackers I have been erroneously diagnosed)
I do not agree with the practice of writing a script for something as if drugs cover every disease
when you see stats like this
four,top causes of death
* heart disease
* cancer
* stroke
* properly prescribed and properly administered pharmaceutical drugs
from http://WWW.glyconutrientsreference.com
I recommend it
so drugs aren’t all that healthy are they and when there is technology discovered like glyconutrients the picture looks somewhat different.
Just to round out the polymannose story I think I have worked out (inasmuch as one can second guess natural selection) why the macrophage reaction to polymannose is to mount a massive immune reaction and stimulate stem cells.
Seems looking for the only other polymannose structure in the cell (known by me, at least) is the hinge area which normally forms the identification panel that specifies the person in the cell wall.
The only time when a fragment of polymannose would float past would be if there was cell destruction going on, and the overall response would be proportional to the number of macrophages thus activated.
It is fortuitous that Aloe vera has this structure.
How’s this as an analogy.
scene opens on ww2 submarine conning tower and the officer scans the horizon for planes then pans down on the water “debris ahead”, pans across, planks, oil drum, then the music rises and crashes as the lifebouy turns to reveal the name of the vessel.
Captain radios it in. What response?
Macrophage finds polymannose big response, cos in the past it must have been effective and allowed that person more life to carry that ability on. Oversimplification, but that’s the drift.
You mean the ones you WANT to answer, yes? Seems you didn’t answer a few of MY criticisms.
You don’t believe he wrote it? That’s hilarious. That’s like ostrich burying head in sand. The criticism is a FACT. In fact, I even found the actual paper for you. Try to weasel your way out of this one:
A “Glyconutrient Sham”
http://glycob.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/9/652.full
Inside which, Mannatech is specifically named as the leader in this sham.
@David Maddern:
I’m not sure if your environment is completely in line with your own diagnosis – that you no longer need “something” – something that helps to maintain ground contact? 🙂
Or perhaps a more accurate measure is to reduce the intake of “glyconutrients”?
Erroneously diagnosed? Almost everyone who is “up there in the blue” states that the doctors are wrong?
A couple juicy tidbits from the article…
I am at a loss since I am unable to cut and paste on this smartphone and I don’t have an internet computer due to dedicated hacking.
Anyway, the article revised 2008, quotes ‘ there is no evidence ‘ well now there is a growing body of evidence, as I have outlined.
Yes, the regulators do have rules about what can be said and that is fair enough, but on the other side precious few drugs ‘cure’ anyfhing, nor the alone synthetic vitamins (which the vast majority of people take ) ‘cure ‘ anything (in fact in discontinued trials they cured life!)
eg vitamin C does not cure scurvey alone it must be complexed with the plant protein rutin. That was identified by the discoverer of vit C.
Now I have met people who used to have mesothelioma, cancer and broken backs, and a girl who is down syndrome who I could not tell she had the condition but for her facial features.
A man with alpha1 antitrypsin deficiency who thought he wouldn’t last too long as his lungs were being eaten from the inside is now back at work and the people at the hospital are amazed.
these are things I have seen personally and I have related what happened with me .
Could this be a huge complicated conspiracy to fool me… no way
So you will never convince me with niave writers whether they purport to be scientists making opinions or anything else.
Is it any wonder that geologists are the main scientists railing against climate change science.
But ask one of them what they know about the stuff and they will truthfully say ‘I have seen no credible evidence for them to have any effect on the body’
SCOOP run off to the papers, here’s a headline.
The evidence is building, for instance in a study on mycaenia gravis (sp. may be wrong), which is an autoimmune disease affecting connective tissue, and incidentaly when you go for a medical for say a grape picking job,they make you stand with your arms outstretched to each side.
So, good try, I was particularly amused when they basically say these people are mudding the water for REAL glycobiologists, when we claim real food can do what only their drugs-attachedtosugars will be able to do.
They give a lot of weight to what’s in PubMed . I have seen scientist say that the triazine group of farm and forestry chemicals don’t have deletitarius affects on people cos theres nothing in PubMed.
In fact at levels of 0.2 parts per billion they cause trans-sexual conditions in frogs, toads, ducks, goats and human cells in culture, and populations nearby have increased sex linked cancers consistent with it affecting the arimotase reaction which converts testosterone to oestrogen.
The same company that makes em also makes an effective anticancer drug which pushes that reaction back the other way. cynical ain’t it?
aromatase
see. http://WWW.atrazinelovers.com
as for the slander on the Fisher Institute that is a lawyers position only
@Maddern
Since when are Mannatech products considered “real food”? Don’t you just sell a lot of gum?
As for pubMed, unless you can provide some legitimate third-party research SINCE 2008 on the various ingredients touted by Mannatech you’re just blowing hot air.
As for Fisher Institute revelation, you can’t disprove it, so you have to insult it. Ha-ha-ha.
How’s a bit more revelation for you? The director of Fisher Institute is a Mannatech stockholder and has been paid generously by Mannatech in both stocks and cash in the tune of MILLIONS.
http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2006/nov/26/charitys-fisher-institute/
Director of Fisher Institute is none other than McDaniels, once “medical director” of Mannatech, and shuffles often to Manna Relief Ministries, another Mannatech “charity”.
How about another glycobiologist speaking out in the same journal?
http://glycob.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/9/659.full
Let’s see, did you make any extravagant claims?
So you are claiming “success” with Mannatech products. Aren’t you? If not, you’re sure as heck implying it.
@Maddern — aren’t your claims the same as the sort of claim that got Mannatech into trouble in the first place? WSJ reported that at Mannafest 2007 members and customers are claiming being cured of cancer and/or paralysis (hey, sounds familiar!)
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/02/27/man-oh-mannatech-company-founder-settle-false-marketing-claims/
Concerning the last comment one thing that mannapeople can do legally is talk about their own situation, and that is what they were doing … although if someone reproduces that they are violating regulations because they are then repeating third party testamonials.
@ K. Chang … did you see anywhere I said Mannatech products to wit glyconutrients do anything in that panel? that would be a claim.
I wonder about your comprehension. I have enumerated most of mannatechs products and no, they all aren’t gums. Even glyconutrients are not all gums, they are also saps and seaweed .
But all Mannatech products are real food. The antioxidant, hormone precursor the lot. In fact they have trademarked ‘Real Food Technology’
And you are now going to slate Mannareleif . This charity arm has saved life in Romanian orphanage at least. And I don’t know if glyconutrients were involved or not, but of course vitamin related problems were helped with the plant bound vitamin, mineral and phytochemicals preparations.
So you are NOT using testimonials for promotion, correct?
But YOU ARE using testimonials to IMPLY, right here. Let’s see, what were your words?
You have seen. Hmmm…
I thought you had enough education to actually know the difference between coincidence and causation? Or perhaps you don’t understand what does “imply” mean?
You sure as heck implied, and you saw them with your own eyes, as per quote above. Or are you going to claim that you did no implying at all?
Phooey. The main Mannatech products are MADE of various gums as their primary ingredients.
Big difference between “food” and “food technology”. What is wrong with YOUR reading comprehension? Or perhaps you need remedial grammar lessons?
Mannatech products are “food” only in the sense that they are “not drugs”.
Is that the best you can come up with? 1) That is irrelevant to its director and his relation to Fisher Institute and Mannatech. In fact, MannaRelief was named as one of the co-defendents in the Texas case. 2) So what if they saved a few kids? Mafia contributed to charities too. IRRELEVANT.
Hitler breathed, is it therefore wrong to breathe? Someone got something you consider unjusly published in Lancet, so all publications are suspect ?
Debating history? I doubt it.
Implication is, in this case, in the mind of the reader, I would hate to think you have come over to the position that that these things work, especially after me explaining some of the mechanisms.
Dr McDaniel is a rich man through his association with this technology.. good on him, he’s no orphan that way, and there are many more to come.
However that doesnt mean his science is suspect, I suggest you get a copy of his book, quoted above) so you can argue from a point of knowledge rather than the lame arguments proffered.
Food is food, probably all of the ingredients used were once used and/or reveared before glycobiological and other investigation, as where would they look for ingredients but in humans diverse menu.
“But all Mannatech products are real food.” That is a standalone statement.
“In fact they have trademarked ‘Real food technology’.”
This is meant as an interesting aside, and of course does not affect the former sentence.
They are called ‘food’ because they couldn’t find a lethal dose, to arrive at an LD50, which are a feature of drugs. They do not have the toxicity of drugs.
Isn’t it interesting, on the glyconutrientsrefence.com site they call a lot of diseases “diseases of the uninformed”
I expect to live a long lofe, well over 100 as longlived people in blue zones have typically an antioxidant plant material
I take a preparation that is the zenith of antioxidants both in the lipid and water phases.
My immune system is at a high level due to reasons outlined above. I have basically a vegan diet for scientific reasons
What you got there is a theory that has NOT been verified by enough third-party researches NOT in pay or associated with Mannatech (or its affiliates) to be commonly accepted by even other experts in glycobiology, much less the rest of the medical community and the public.
A Mannatech stockholder and former medical director of Mannatech, leading a “research institute” whose research validates Mannatech products and ingredients. If that doesn’t scream “conflict of interest”, what does?
Unless some folks have been mislead into thinking it can treat or provide relief for actual DISEASE… Didn’t something like that happened in Australia? About a father who basically overfed his sick daughter on Ambrotose for two weeks before bringing her to the ER? Aha, here it is…
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fathers-mannatech-mania-hurts-girl/2008/12/16/1229189611237.html
Very sad, yes. (sarcasm on) But of course it was his own fault for believing so much in “real food” and “vital nutrient”. (sarcasm off)
Isn’t it interesting that the site you cited names no editor (not even a name), must less any credentials? Nor does it lists or links alleged research cited, if any? Most citings are just generalized statements like glyconutrients help this and that and that helps you fight disease… same sort of implication you did here many times.
If you want to play that game… Isn’t it interesting that Mannatech got a listing in the CULT LISTING of New Zealand?
http://www.cults.co.nz/mannatech-claims.php
How about a REAL medical professional, a real M.D. and his view on Mannatech products?
http://www.raysahelian.com/glyconutrients.html
Watch how David will attack Ray Sahelian, M.D. but not the information presented. He’s quite predictable now 🙂
Probably with “he knows nothing about glyconutrients” excuse…
Ever realize how close is pseudo-science to a scam?
http://hubpages.com/hub/Pseudoscience-and-Scam-Close-Cousins
Well I read his thing and a few things stood out.
he learnt nutrition but has not kept up with scientific advances in the field.
He comes at it as if it is a scam. I say that because he questions the number 8 for glyconutrients. As a matter of fact mannatechs scientists have found more, but empirically the 8 came from the French researchers who with electronmicroscopy identified 8sugars on protein extensions on cell surfaces, but a more accessible enumeration is in Harpers Biochemistry since,2002, under essential sugars.
His thing about making a product ‘aminonutrient’, is reasonable because there are essential amino acids, but what glyconutrients are is a new type of nutrient outside amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins and minerals, and his book didn’t have any entry because he didn’t miss a lecture or upgraded his book but this is relatively new.
Also glaring is his logic that ‘ Americans are missing long chain fatty acids and dietary fibre’ therefore not anything else. FHI they are also deficient in folate, and mistakenly take synthetic vitamins and ores of minerals and only partially assimilate them.
You’re right he doesn’t know about these things, and I think he says as much, and doctors generally are informed by drug companies so it is no surprise .
In summary I see he doesn’t know much about the subject so I wonder what moved him to write about it.
Yeah, exactly.
Is Mannatech a scam? Of course not, Mannatech told me so. LOL.
Mind providing links/references to these researchers please? Ones that aren’t in any way linked to Mannatech if possible. And real links, not something you read on glyconutrientsreference.com, or others have copied and pasted from that site (or vice versa).
If it’s in Harpers Biochemistry, show us the page, not just a website that claims it’s in there.
With so much good stuff about these products, I’m sure you could find a few independent reviews… c’mon, you can point us to at least one..
It’s amusing how you can be so quickly accepting of anything positive that’s written about “glyconutrients”, even if you have no idea who the author is.
Yet, when there is something negative written, which even includes the author’s name, the best you can come with is ‘he doesn’t know much about the subject’.
@Vince — standard pseudo-science tactic, Vince, to blindly accept data that “proves” their viewpoint, and dismiss any data that contradicts their viewpoint. From the hub cited earlier…
And Dave… you seem to be in non-compliance of Mannatech policy, from which I paraphrase:
What’s really hilarious… Mannatech sent such a “compliance cease and desist” letter to a CRITIC of Mannatech. 😀
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/files/mailbox.htm
Just read a lot of stuff on that raysahalein site, might have to send them an email showing the mechanisms.
So where do you think I went wrong re mannapolicy?
@Vince I don’t have a Harpers Biochem and I suspect page no would be different with year of publication, but your doctor would have it.
about the cease and desist I suspect it is what one of the correspondants about a disease mentioned and a resolution.
So you deny you wrote this? I suggest scrolling back up.
“Used to”, “now back at work”… were your words, yes? Clearly implying that Mannatech’s product(s) have helped with these conditions. These statements clearly can construed as Mannatech products helping MORE than “general well-being”.
As for Harper’s Biochem… There is a chapter in there about glycoproteins, glycoscience, and glycobiology, which was basically invented by Dr. Gunter Blobel, who got a Novel Prize in Medicine for it in 1999.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1999/blobel-autobio.html
However, this is the same guy, along with other Nobel Laureates, that send a “cease and desist” to Mannatech asking them to stop using their names. Mannatech IGNORED their request. It was cited above in that Glycobiology Sham article cited earlier, and details are below.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/mannatech/mannatech28.html
So at best, the reference in Harper’s Biochem book is proof that glycobiology is a real discipline, but calling it any sort of validation or endorsement for Mannatech would be a lie. That’d be about as valid as a new MLM startup claiming “endorsement” from Donald Trump just because Trump owns a MLM.
Let’s see, what else do you need to know about McDaniels?
— http://www.rickross.com/reference/mannatech/mannatech34.html
Carrington supplied most of the gums to Mannatech, and sponsored quite a few “research” ops regarding their ingredients along with Mannatech, as cited in the “Glyconutrient Sham” above.
Yep, exactly as Vince and I predicted…
well it wasn’t as predicted
I attacked what he wrote
I attacked his knowledge level
I proposed, and have drafted, an email to him
I have been aware that McDaniel has been through the wingers cos I have read his book and it is a very interesting read but put yourself in his shoes, he isolated a natural substance that could do what most doctors dream about , proved this in dogs and then people while the establishment wouldn’t listen and continued, and continue to poison people in the name of cure.
Oh, sure, explain how different is “I attacked his knowledge level” from “he knows nothing about glyconutrients”
As if any book he wrote won’t be singing praises of him… Very one-sided story for sure. According to the complaint in Texas, he likely experimented on some HUMAN patients, instead of just on his dogs as you claim. Let’s see, what was the quote?
If he was through a wringer, it was all his own doing, and a doctor willing to bend ethics is… eek.
I just wanted to chime in and say that this is an interesting thread. David, K. Chang – you two have amazing stamina. Imagine if you applied yourselves to something other than a b*tch fight 😉
@Francis — but who’s getting b***h-slapped? 😀 Sure ain’t me. 😀
Thanks Francis,
@K_Chang I can see what would happen here, that I won’t be able to say what became of the patient, but I will go back to the book and see.
@Francis I know I will win this, even if it is by outliving him!
What exactly is it you’ll win? Convincing people with at least half a brain that these sugar pills are good for you? Making millions from selling this stuff?
I doubt you’ll be able to achieve either.
Why not read the actual penalty letter sent to Dr. McDaniels from the Texas medical board? From the letter, it seems he’s trying aloe extracts on a guy with AIDS at a hospital he wasn’t even assigned to.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/mannatech/mannatech37.pdf
I think that’s call faith, which has nothing to do with science and facts.
Good luck. You’ll need it. And don’t sprain your brain in the meanwhile.
Was a joke, Joyce!
stamina >> all our lives get it?
@Vince hmmmm sorry that you can’t understand.
polymannose bit of cell wall engulfed by macrophage starts immune system cascade of functions (as above) including stem cell activation, because in a significant number of times in past this has saved the body .
Aloe polymannose does the same thing, and other glyconutrients populate the new cells with proper glycoprotein surface antigens
that’s the mechanism
@Francis
I second this.
Whilst glyconutrients is a topic that largely goes over my head, I must say the discussions around it are no doubt going to prove useful to those conducting their own research in the field. Although I’ve got no idea about the science and what not about it, I’m only too happy to be hosting the discussion.
Oh, yes, it is interesting alright. 🙂
In My Honest Opinion, the above thread is a perfect illustration of a skeptic armed with FACTS and logical thinking, vs. a faithful follower armed with partial facts and a lot of logical fallacies trying to “defend” his faith.
Faith? Mate, I have a scientific history, I have shown you the mechanism, (you have “no idea about the science”, but you have searching skills, good enough to find an obscure letter, and surely you are not allergic to finding a summary of the immune system, or even ask me what a stem cell does.
If you doubt the immune response then on that ‘real doctor’ site witness the person who hates the stuff cos it made his problem a lot worse for a month that is consistent with the immune system augmentation first before the replacement of his unglycolated and targeted cells ),
I have told you what happened to my body, I have told you what I have seen, even though you see that as a hangable offence, I have put you onto a site that tells the truth, not some reactionary uninformed claptrap like the sites you bring up (you call the FACTS, which may have been augmented by cashed up and threatened big pharma ) .
I am prevented from putting up any direct reference to peoples responses by way of third party testimonials, I don’t know what else I can do except recommend that you go on it for 6 months and if it only causes flatulance (but it won’t) you can fart in triumph.
I can’t help having a go at your logical thinking .. Denialists use so and so method therefore the method is discredited.
some discredited person got a paper in Lancet therefore anything published is discredited
You have shown ability to regurgitate theory and promo material Mannatech gave you, something even Nobel Laureates claim was hijacked by Mannatech.
I can’t help having a go at your flawed thinking twisting other people’s words to fit your own agenda, same exact thing alleged by Novel Laureates against Mannatech.
I have NEVER claimed that anything published is discredited. This is the SECOND time you claimed so. If you do it one MORE time I have no choice but to call you a liar in a public forum.
anything’s possible in the context of the Lancet…..sounds to me like throwing you hands up and saying IYHO that published stuff is suspect in its veracity and can be cynically manipulated. So should I be called a liar?
btw I am not regurgitating Mannatech stuff and I am integrating some of my own thinking with stuff from books, what I have learned at conferences, etc
@Maddern — no, I was saying that even reputable sources need to be double-checked. And I was referring to the alleged research YOU brought up. The FULL quote was
(quote from Mr. Maddern referring to two alleged studies on some ingredients used by Mannatech snipped)
Wakefield’s alleged research has been contradicted, debunked, and basically rendered worthless since its publication.
Leading glycobiologists have raised plenty of questions on Mannatech’s research (and efficacy of the ingredients). Some even called it a sham. Nobel Laureates have asked Mannatech to stop using their name.
So any doubt I am raising is about MANNATECH research, not research in general. You’re trying to quote me OUT OF CONTEXT.
I don’t know, it seems you’re both putting forth effective arguments, and as a debate I don’t think there’s a clear winner. The repartee is great…. keeping it above the belt, which doesn’t seem to happen much on mlm blog comments.
I did some research on glyconutrients, and from what I could see they were discovered in the 1980’s, but my spell checker flags the word no matter how I try to spell it 😛
Leading glycobiologists opinions are what you are reacting to, and those opinions are wrong as it turns out.
The results that people get are remarkable to say the least, and the science is catching up. The whole chain from ingestion to glycolation has been proved.
The ingestion of polymannose and activation of the multiple immune system pathways for viral destruction, bacterial destruction, infact any aberrant cell destruction, narrowing of blood vessels, and activation of liver cells and repair of tissues, has been proved.
This is reflected in the wider world, with macro effects like in me, cos I am allowed to talk about me, a rodent ulcer that had been growing in the corner of my eye, just went. Normally (if I can call it that) surgery has to be done to remove them.
@Francis spell checkers are not good arbiter, for instance infundibulum is a part of your brain but won’t appear in a spell checker.
Link please?
Link please?
Link please?
Link please?
btw the first mention of the surface sugars on cells happened in 1910, the same year that the first vital amines were described .. these are now known as vitamins.
And who says they are wrong? Mannatech, of course.
Self-justifying logic. They are wrong. Why? Because I am right.
ANOTHER logical fallacy and OPINION cited as fact and used as supporting evidence.
I disagree about that. I think there’s a clear winner, if you actually tabulate the arguments. It’s just that one guy keeps coming back for more. 😀
Right Chang, you show me their arguments that I haven’t refuted.
@K_Chang Instead of being afraid of science why don’t you learn what an increadable cell a macrophage is?
@Maddern: How about some FACTS?
You’ve refuted with UNPROVEN research from a company even Nobel Laureates claim have usurped their name for commercial gain.
You have refuted with UNCORROBORATED scientifically sounding babble that is NOT widely accepted in glycobiology, much less the general medical community or the general public.
I have no doubt macrophage is a nice cell. I simply doubt any explanation you choose to attribute to Mannatech ingredients.
Nobel Laureates requested their names not be used because too aggressive associates were saying the nobel prizes were associated with the technology rather than saying that they were in the area.
The company is streets above any competitor and in a sense I feel sorry for you as you seem to reject all Mannatech products and science because you reject glyconutrients and that means youre left with the unknowing on the path to illhealth and death before your usebydate.
For all I know you could smoke in which you are confirmed on that path.
I suppose you put your faith in a balanced diet which just about no one gets these days.
And the recommended 3 to 5 extra fruit and veg means that the standard fare does not supply enough to protect against oxygen radicals.
Its not if the macrophage is nice or not. It is that it is the sentinel cell in the tween cell spaces that keeps the status quo.
Things like the concentration of platelets, and other white cells and the pH and in the immune cascade described some 200 cytokines are spread and these coded messages affect many types of cells
Even if it was the associates that did the misleading, Mannatech shares the blame for not reining in their associates from making false claims.
You can’t tell the difference between rejecting glycoscience and rejecting Mannatech. Mannatech is NOT the only game in glycoscience. Mannatech simply claim to be a PART OF glycoscience. However, to you Mannatech is apparently ALL of glycoscience. Other glycobiologists that don’t agree with Mannatech? “They must be employed by competitors,” I believe you wrote.
Oh, my, you have to resort to PERSONAL INSULTS now. I guess you ran out of LOGICAL and FACTUAL arguments.
Too bad for you, I’m a teetotaler and a non-smoker. Never touched them. And it’s none of your **** business.
FACT: Mayo Clinic wrote “Although animal studies suggest possible benefits from glyconutrient supplementation, there is very little research to support any of these health claims in humans. This makes it difficult to assess the potential risks and benefits of glyconutrient supplementation.”
FACT: The Society for Glycobiology: “The society does not endorse use of these or other nutritional supplements and is not associated with any manufacturer or supplier of ‘glyconutrients.’ The society urges persons having questions regarding nutritional supplements to consult a physician before initiating use of any nutritional supplement claiming to enhance health or treat disease.”
FACT: The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Care Center Committee*: “The committee found no scientific evidence to support the claims of benefit of glyconutrient therapy in CF. The committee believes that these unsupported claims may mislead CF patients and result in the adoption of an unproven therapy and possible replacement of proven therapies. … As patient advocates, the Care Center Committee strongly suggests that individuals with CF not adopt glyconutrient therapies without scientific evidence supporting their use.”
The FACTS say
1) Mannatech is a participant in glycobiology, making some supplements providing glyconutrients which they ALLEGE the body needs for “wellness”.
2) These ALLEGATIONS that body needs glyconutrients are disputed by most (virtually all?) medical professionals, including Mayo Clinic (world reknown experts in medicine) and Society for Glycobiology (experts in glycobiology).
let’s see, here’s several right here:
ONE:
You said Mannatech is losing money and stock price drop because Caster announced Mannatech is giving away supplements for every purchase. link
I replied the price drop occurred LONG before the speech. And you never did refute THAT.
TWO:
You got caught citing a bogus autism stat that 1 in 10 kids is now autistic. Then backpedaled. link
THREE:
You blame any criticism on Mannatech as spoken by rivals with a conspiracy out to get Mannatech. I called you out on it and you keep repeating the charges without proof. link Claims critics are employed by enemies. link Then you suddenly changed the subject, and never DID provide any proof.
FOUR:
You claim one of the top US MLM attorney is not an expert link, makes general statement about network marketing is legal therefore Mannatech is legal. link
I point out that’s a logical fallacy (link) and you didn’t refute that.
How about a few more?
FIVE:
You used “ad hominem” attack multiple times on Michael Spector’s TED speech on the “Big Placebo”. link
SIX:
You wrote “”All you ppl who say they don’t work have no evidence that they don’t, its at best hung on an hypothesis.”
link When called out, your reply was “I wasn’t asking you to prove the negative, but saying that the sum total of you objections was an unsupportedr hypothesis.” link That’s a circular argument.
SEVEN:
Admits to believing in MacDaniels, med director of Mannatech, “When a doctor of 1/2 a century’s experience says ‘this is it, this is what you’be been looking for.’ I tend to agree with him.” (link dismisses other experts in glycobiology as “not writing scientifically”. link. “I can afford to be discriminatory” yet still claims “No promanna blindspot “.
EIGHT:
You didn’t have any refutation for Fisher Institute, MacDaniels, or MannaRelief (link)
I’m sure I can dig up a couple more if I look a bit closer.
The last, yes I did say McDaniels went through the wringer and his book is a good read .. going through the addition of cytotoxic.. woops poisonous agents to the bone marrow of an angelic young girl, and this continued till she was a released by death.
The technologists wouldn’t attend and McDaniels got the cold shoulder cos he suggested this would be manslaughter in another setting and wished to find a better way, He writes with alternate chapters in plain English and scientific and I find that the scientific writing is credible and referenced and the sum total revelationary.
About Mannatech alleged share dive I was merely presenting a possibility, you came back and said my timing was wrong .. fair enough.. I not much interested in the share market so that’s that .
Mannatech is a participant in glycobiology so true, but in the commercial side they have a large slice of the range as their patents cover all the natural supply of two or more or is it more than 2 in combination in a swag of countries. You will note that all that is left (commercial) is attaching drugs to them.
The Mayo people merely were disclaiming involvement but not saying they don’t work they are simply stating they have no link.
fair enough about the cf society, I don’t know if any empiracle evidence was before them, but I would recommend that they do a trial, cos I know there is empiracle evidence.
Autism reference I think you are representing me I am fairly sure I said the autism/ashburgers continuum and I explained I used a talk from someone I thought reliable (and I found more recently I had remembered what they said anyway.)
The big placebo reference I don’t remember
I think he’s got you there, K. Chang – he sounds so sure of himself now 🙂
thanks Vince out of context for a quick shot
Look, the glycobiologists who made statements about glyconutrients being not required, or just cause flatulance have been proved to be wrong.
Now I don’t have the reference for the paper because it is being published about now, but perhaps I will ask the customer support next time I talk to them.
This research is what I have mentioned before, that glycolation patterns on immunoglobulum G in the body changed with the ingestion of the Ambrotose powder
The scientific sounding babble I might let you know that I deleted any reference to upregulation and downregulation of genes
do you have trouble with
interferon .. antiviral molecule
interleukan …messenger molecules
stem cells… unconsigned cells that can go to multiple types of cells.
You also got wrong a statement I made from a doctor who now is retired from coventional medicine after some 49 years in diverse areas of medicine who said “I’ve seen more miracles in the first 4 months of using this technology than in 49 years of conventional medicine.”, and said “this is it! this is what you have been looking for” is not Dr McDaniel who was a pathologist working on aloe vera’s antiviral properties in AIDS
@Maddern, so it wasn’t MacDaniels, okay. My mistake. Was that a personal revelation to you, Mannatech marketing material, publicly verifiable information, or “other”?
Ability to write a good book is not really related to his ethics or his expertise on glycobiology (which I believe is “none”, feel free to correct me)
Which is completely irrelevant to whether their product actually do any thing about “wellness”.
What they said was there is no proof that glyconutrients work ON HUMANS. There are some suggestions that they have some effect on LAB ANIMALS.
If you are able to convince some human guinea pigs to PAY for the privilege of providing data to Mannatech about glyconutrient effect on humans, all the more power to you.
let me guess… By mannatech?
For better, or for worse? Who sponsored the research?
What you have problem with is trying to prove something that affects a couple cells or a few lab animals is either safe or beneficial to HUMANS.
Because outside of Mannatech’s claims, it doesn’t exist. If there was proof of this, David would’ve posted it by now, but he continues to dance around the subject with all these stupid regurgitated claims, without an ounce of evidence.
When asked to display evidence:
I admit he’s done a good job of stringing this along for a couple of months, but that’s about all he’s done.
As far as I’m concerned, until he can share evidence independent of Mannatech (which doesn’t exist because it’s all been made up by the smart heads of Mannatech), he’s full of crap.
To anyone who has bought into his or Mannatech’s crap, I wish you well with your sugar pills and sugar gum. You have officially been sucked in.
Go on David, ignore all this and continue to not share evidence and instead ramble on about crap, I dare ya :]
On the macrophages reaction to polymannose … is that the crap I ramble on about, perhaps if it is, it says more about you than me.
Yes the glycolation change to IgG was done by scientific employment at mannatech and could well be reproduced by French scientist who are already using the methods they used.
I have no doubt about either the scientists or facilities at their labs as ppl go there to do their PhDs and MScs
(rest of glyco-jargon snipped)
There you go again, so I guess I have to quote myself:
Mannatech continuously monitors safety in the same way drug companies do, as well as standardized measurement so that they can be called nutroceuticals and have earned NSA labelling that assures the standardization of the active ingredients.
Mannatechs products all work in people, and I am satisfied they work as per the macrophage actions mentioned above and other things that in sum total help the immune system. They did and do in me, which I have described.
Sales and use of Mannatech products are occurring in about a million bodies and this is simply driven by results, as you can’t insure wellness there is certainly no insurance driving it.
About McDaniels book it is revelationary inasmuch as he describes another way, which was what he was searching for, in cats, dogs, people with AIDS, and people without AIDS, and the mechanism is the immune system of these individuals, along the lines of that described above.
I recommend it, it is available at glycotools.com
Outside Mannatech there is the study done by Flinders Uni where normal healthy people at the stage of life where brain function is waning were given 1 teaspoon of Ambrotose daily (or was it twice per day) over twelve weeks and scored for brain function and over controls they
1. showed improvement in the improbable biomarkers of aging (eg.can’t change age)
2. more alert
3. less forgetful
4. improved cognition
have no info on if they got infections etc.
Marinova are a company harvesting the Japanese warami seaweed in Tasmania
they got scientists to look at what’s in it and what happens when humans eat it.
On the radio I heard that fucose is in chains so a fucan and people taking this fared better when challenged with colds and flu they got significantly less infections and they reckon it competitive denial of binding sites
Outside Mannatech there is the study done by Flinders Uni where normal healthy people at the stage of life where brain function is waning were given 1 teaspoon of Ambrotose daily (or was it twice per day) over twelve weeks and scored for brain function and over controls they
1. showed improvement in the improbable biomarkers of aging (eg.can’t change age)
2. more alert
3. less forgetful
4. improved cognition
have no info on if they got infections etc.
Marinova are a company harvesting the Japanese warami seaweed in Tasmania
they got scientists to look at what’s in it and what happens when humans eat it.
On the radio I heard that fucose is in chains so a fucan and fucoidan and people taking this fared better when challenged with colds and flu they got significantly less infections and they reckon it competitive denial of binding sites
I’m sorry, but NSA, to a Yank such as me, means National Security Agency, which is fully of spies. WHICH NSA may you be referring to?
In America, drugs and nutritional supplements are governed by the FDA (food and drugs administration), and “nutraceuticals” is governed by ANA in cooperation with FDA.
The only link ANA have with Mannatech is a Dr. Darryl See published a study in the ANA Journal in 1999 about Mannatech ingredients, but 11 months before publication he had resigned due to ethics violations, by not revealing he had received over 100K from Mannatech and was actually a Mannatech distributor since 1997.
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/mannatech02.htm
Anecdotal evidence is very unreliable. You claim to be experienced in medical science, yes? Surely you know that. Simply because things occur in sequence does not “prove” the prior item “caused” the subsequent item, or “correlation does not prove causation”. Yet you are here claiming anecdotal ‘evidence’.
If you’re implying that they are selling and therefore they are good, that’s called a BANDWAGON FALLACY, which can be summarized, “If it popular, it must be true.”
Did he explain how he got that letter of reprimand?
Actually there were FIVE studies done on humans. However, two groups did two each (basically repeating their experiments, which is good, as they need to validate their own results). Did you not search on Mannatech’s website?
It is interesting you quoted the Flinders study by Dr. Best. Did you notice that her own study, back in 2005, shows NO performance increase compared with placebo group, regarding Ambrotose?
http://mannatechscience.org/files/file/Tbest-An%20investigation%20of%20sacch.pdf
Yet in the 2010 study by the same Dr. Best, with slightly different methodology, she claims noticeable performance increase.
http://mannatechscience.org/files/file/publications_TBest_Sacc_Effects.pdf
But of course, it was the 2010 study that was heavily highlighted and distributed to all Mannatech members, and was even mentioned by Mannatech’s “forward looking statement” to investors. Not a single WORD about the 2005 study contradicting the 2010 study.
I say your celebration may be premature.
In the first experiment re IgG they were normal ppl with no obvious symptoms of disease (definition of healthy) , and there IgG was watched to get a handle on day to day variation before they could work out timescales, before dozing and the change happened then.
It is common to redo an experiment after tweaking the methodology to get it right, especially if there is previous data supporting the principle under test.
And about the bandwagon mentality you allege you have no evidence that they don’t work, whereas I know they do, so wouldn’t you be neutral on their efficacy
It is common to redo an experiment after tweaking the methodology to get it right, especially if there is previous data supporting the principle under test.
And about the bandwagon mentality you allege you have no evidence that they don’t work, whereas I know they do, so wouldn’t you be neutral on their efficacy
Mr. Maddern… The ONLY ONES who are qualified to determine what’s different between those two experiments would be Dr. Best herself and presumably other research clinicians. You and I can speculate all we want on what factors would have affected the results, but admit it, neither you nor I have REAL proof on what caused the 180 reversal in results. It is a discrepancy that had not been scientifically explained and accounted for.
I thought the previous data did NOT support the principle under test? Or is that just a Freudian slip on your part?
Did you just try to counter the “bandwagon fallacy” with the “proving a negative” fallacy?
Sorry I got this wrong . the endorsing on Mannatech’s products is NSF (National Science Foundation) who are apparrently the oldest laboratory qualifying people.
Now the ‘Bandwagon’ alleged behaviour of 1 million people .. it is an insult to the intelligence of me and all those people. What, do you think I imagined the rodent ulcer that was next to my eye?
Among these people there are people who once had cancer, parkinsons etc etc and the ones I have talked to are intelligent and optomistic, and like the man said intelligent people see that the quality of food supply has diminished and actively seek corrective supplements.
I can speculate on Dr Tahalia Best and her experimental design… the 1 teaspoon is probably an advance on the 2 capsules (.88gm) twice daily which is what I usually take as a maintenance dose so I suspect the original amount was that, and a bigger dose was a correction.to the experimental design. Course that may be wrong.
What does having cancer and all that have to do with Mannatech products? I don’t understand.
Oh and as for their experiments or “studies”, it seems they’re good at lying about that too and/or paying doctors to speak praise of Mannatech products…
http://www.caic.org.au/commercial/Mannatech/manna-uses%20study.htm
Anyway David, I don’t want to see you sidetracked from my original question, so I’ll ask again just in case. What does having cancer and all that have to do with Mannatech products? I don’t understand.
Sorry, try again. In the US National Science Foundation does NOT certify anything, esp. medical sciences.
http://www.nsf.gov/about/
Then you are self-delusional, because that is the exact definition of bandwagon fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_Fallacy
There you go again, trying to use “anecdotal” evidence as “proof” without formal study of correlation vs. causation.
And you claim to be a medical scientist…
Intelligent people are fooled all the time. Bernie Madoff fooled everybody from small-time investors to Wall Street elite AND even European royalties for over a decade to tune of 72 BILLION dollars. Being intelligent has nothing to do with not getting fooled (or scammed).
@maddern
You are referring NSF.ORG, which is NOT National Science Foundation, but just “NSF International”.
http://www.nsf.org/business/about_NSF/
As for what does the certification contain, it simply says it certifies the content to be acceptably pure.
http://www.nsf.org/Certified/consumer/listings_results_detail.asp?prod_desc=Advanced+Ambrotose%99+complex+powder&prog_code=DIETARY&cust_id=4P070&search_tbl=ols_dietsupp&search_field=trade_designation&std_id=173&com_detail=N&final_detail=Y&std_ext=FP&prog_dir=Dietary&cat_desc=
Doesn’t claim anything about effects at all.
Heck, one can manufacture poison or germs under lab conditions and NSF will probably certify it. 😀
Where’s the peer reviewed articles on the benefits of Mannatech products? All I see from David Maddern is a load of bulldust supported by his own belief system. He may believe it, but anybody with an inkling of scientific knowledge doesn’t. Waffle away David, you are convincing no one but yourself.
Being neutral means assume the Mannatech supplements do nothing until proven otherwise. Unless you have a DIFFERENT definition of “neutral”…
Glad we agree on something: both you and I can’t explain the difference.
I’m back! First, the half sentences are due,to smartphone non responsiveness or hacker activity, really can’t tell which.
The,question of the link between mannatech and cancer has been explained so all you need to do is read back, but it basically goes like this stimulated macrophage releases immune system cascade and glycoproteins on IgG are improved as are cell antigens for better specificity, hay presto cancer cells which have aberrant antigens and are killed.ho repeats the question of the link between cancer and mannateck
The person who repeats the,question about cancer
My phone was stolen (no, not a delusion, it is on cctv in glorious colour and the cops have,a copy.) So I bought a new one,(no, not delusion, I am using it now.)
Now how can witnessing ones own obvious,change to ones skin in a 50
X 50mm space be anecdotal Are you saying I talk to myself ?
Someone wants to know the link between
If not where is the anecdote?
Where is the bullcrap?
Now someone who can’t read back
@maddern — You have alleged some scientific-sounding babble that you can’t prove actually works on humans (except yourself). Did you account for placebo effect and other factors? Do you consider yourself a scientific experiment?
Sounds like a “hasty generalization” to me.
No, that is not quite true. It is not my ability to prove that these things work in otherz people. It is rather that regulators prevent me putting up these third party examples of the efficacy of the foods under question.
I have explained the mechanism and you clearly have and educational or motivational deficiency inasmuch as calling it pseudoscience or babble, because clearly you have searching abilities and macrophage isn’t that big a word, is it?
BTW macrophage: big eater
I have no doubt macrophage is a great cell. I simply doubt any role Mannatech ingredients play in that mechanism…. Wait, I am repeating myself:
I guess if you are reduced to recycling your own arguments…
Mate, what I have proffered is the current state of the Glyconutrients.
That there is few placebo controlled Double-blind trials is undisputed, as they take some time to conduct and publish, and are more appropriate to drugs.
Further, your discounting of Dr McDaniel because he gave food to an AIDS patient, because they are foods, that much has been proved by the FDA., is strange, imho.
I will give the references cited in his presentation to a U S state senate in the next few weeks, but, frankly, I doubt your ability to understand same.
soldering on, David
@Maddern: playing strawman again, I see…
I criticized McDaniels for his getting censored by Texas Medical board, not for giving food (i.e. nutritional supplements) to AIDS patient. Was he even supposed to be at that hospital? Hmmm?
You are just full of ad hominem attacks. I suggest a soap diet regimen.
“Glyconutrients” were supposedly “discovered” in the 1980’s…how long can it possibly take to publish some tests? lol.
@K_Chang
Dr McDaniel was caned by the board for treating a patient when not privileged to do. My point is that if he was using aloe vera stabilized inner leaf gel then he wasnt doing any more than giving food to the patient and that is a time honoured thing to do, but not applying medication as they allege.
So I maintain that you dismiss wholesale Dr McDaniel’s work because of this erroneous, supposed transgression.
@Vincent
Mannatech has a time line publication of what they have been doing and there are challenges to their patents, funded by drug companies and a lot of other things and product development and spreading them through now 16 countries.
What I meant to say was none of you objections are dated, because as time goes on they get refuted.
Or put another way my comments are fairly up to date and you are dragging up stuff from years ago and using that to claim that prominent workers in the field say this or that when it isn’t current.
@Maddern: McDaniels was disciplined for his ethical violations, practicing medicine in a facility he should not even be in, much less prescribing nutritional supplements. There is no doubt to the FACT that he violated both rules AND ethics.
Is it me or are you trying to say that “the ends justify the means”?
As for whether it’s refuted or not, you haven’t refuted much, except with barely relevant technobabble (which in itself wasn’t fully proven, much less relevant) and several logical fallacies. Didn’t I went over EVERY ONE of your arguments before?
After all, it is Mannatech’s REPUTATION that is at stake here. Reputation is comprised of EVERYTHING not just “update to date” information.
You can’t even explain why the same research team getting two different results in the span of a few years!
The research teams getting different results is or is not the Best study ? Did I not tender a potential reason changing the dose to a teaspoon.
I surmised that perhaps 2caps twice a day (as that is the labellled rate.) was the original rate .
But then you said we can’t second guess the researchers and I agree.
So is that not explaining? What, do you think I have the good Dr Best’s phone number?
@maddern — Good, so don’t offer up explanations for Dr. Best. It’s something that need to be explained… By her and other glyco-scientists.
You veered that way when you wrote “you are dragging up stuff from years ago and using that to claim that prominent workers in the field say this or that when it isn’t current.”
Even if it’s not current, they are far more “expert” in the field than we are.
I stand by that comment.
For instance, if that comment by ‘an expert’ talking about drinking glyconutrient materials scientifically correct then that would be around or back before the establishment of Mannatech, as Dr McDaniel used a liquid.
So that is around 16years ago the field of glycobiology is the hottest in medical science and lots of things happen per year.
(Eg French scientists identified 8 sugars with their precursors on protein extensions on cell surfaces. They are now correlating disease states with glycodeficiencies. Glycolation of IgG.)
BTW Dr McDaniels carbohydrate research was noticed by Solveg, who were looking to treat Merricks disease in intensively cultivated chickens.
They could only get a 63% response to a vaccine they developed but when aloe polymannose was added the effectiveness rose to 98% . They licence it to this day.
Hi folks wow thanks for all this back and forth chat. I discovered the sugarmums add in a childrens magazine. Alarm bells rang immediately as the product wasn’t exposed.
I called their 1300 number and no one answered so I looked at their website and still no product could be found. I googles it and found this page.
I unexpectadly found myself reading for over one hour and can clearly see the bigger picture on this product. I feel sorry for the niave believers. To struggle so endlessly in trying to convince validation and quality to a product and then be confronted by some seriously intelligent people is a challenge and one they simply can’t meet.
One lady said it well enough. She mentioned that hiding a product while trying to sell it is suspect.
To Mr Madden my only question then becomes, if you believe in this product so whole heartedly, and while your credible product doesn’t appear to hold ground, then why wouldn’t the company owners place at least this information on their website?
Let’s face it, if it really is a specialtablet that works, don’t you think people would flock to it? Oh deary me
The problem, IMHO, of Sugarmums, is they claim to be selling Mannatech’s products, but not mentioning the products themselves, but rather, emphasize the money you can make selling the whatever. That, as you have observed, seems shady.
Furthermore, it is basically MLM done wrong (again, IMHO). MLM, in order to be ethical, must emphasize the product (and selling of that product) at all times. After all, it’s “multi-level MARKETING”, with marketing being the main word.
However, based on what I have observed (I’m in the other hemisphere) Sugarmums (and indeed, plenty of other MLMs) are simply marketed as “opportunities” instead of products.
In other words, Sugarmums, (and many MLMs) are marketed as “let someone else sell stuff for you and you rake in the $$$, and you do that by recruiting a lot of someones!” They fail to realize the operative words there is “sell stuff”. If you have a bunch of people who can’t sell, you will not make a penny. However, the lure of “do nothing and make money” is too strong to ignore.
And of course, if you have any sort of “opportunity” that claims you can make a lot of money by simply recruiting people, that’s a pyramid scheme.
@Clare Heasly:
Ssshhh, don’t wake the monster.
One of his claims holds ground, it IS “dried food”, “food supplement” or something similar.
Hi Everyone,
I’ve just had a quick read of some of the posts. I was enrolled into Sugarmums by someone who was basically incompetent & couldnt answer questions (only response was to giggle) and I was not supported by any upline including Lucilla Howison.
There was one time I rang Lucilla and wanted to ask a question, she wanted to book me an appt to speak with her in 2 days, but then I didnt hear from her for about 2 weeks & she said she was sick (and she’s using health products?)
During my almost 4 years in Mannatech (and the Sugarmums team) I was lucky to have over 3,300 people in my downline – sounds great hey? Well, out of all those people, only 1 got to Presidential (and that was only for 1 month), and 4 people briefly got to Executive Director, then there were a few Nationals & Regionals.
That was in the heyday about 2.5yrs ago – it went downhill from there (I followed the numbers closely) and as at earlier this year there were only 2 Nationals and about 5 Regionals. So out of all those people and after so many years and all the hard work and effort, possibly only 2 people are earning maybe about $1,000 pm & a few others might be getting about $300 pm.
Someone I know got a chq of $66 as a Regional – and in order to get a chq you have to place an order which costs approx $120min.
Unless there is a Presidential within the Sugarmums team that I havent heard of (unlikely) it also means that Lucilla is NOT a Silver Presidential – but only Presidential… if that.
Dont be fooled by their claims – especially about what ppl are earning. On the website they use pictures and stories of people who are no longer in or building the business, and also, some of the people are no longer qualifying at the level they still claim to be.
By the way, one of the Executive Directors never received a phone call from Lucilla until after she left the business – so in over 3 years and after getting to a ‘high leadership level’ – without any direct assistance or support from Lucilla.
It took me over 2 years to get to National and the biggest cheque I got was $1,200.
Also, Lucilla and other members of the team like to suggest other companies are operating illegally, and they also use scare tactics to isolate people from those that have left the team (eg threatening legal action, and that charges will be laid by police)
Lisa who wrote the first comment sounds like she’s happy… I wonder how she’s going in her Sugarmums home business? Making any money? What about Pippa? She claims “the system that once put in place, provides an ongoing royalty style income that can equal the upper limits of top CEO’s” – as I said, out of what was my part of the team of over 3,300 only 2 people are earning approx $1,000pm – so that’s a lot of people who couldnt make it work.
Also, of all those people, less than 10% were currently ordering from the last information I had. Lucilla has publically stated in the past that she has about 7,500 ppl in her team – so ‘my’ part of the Sugarmums team was a sizeable chunk of Lucilla’s. They made a big show of her husband James giving up his job to work from home over a year ago – this was after Lucilla had been in Mannatech for about 12 or so years.
Also, the highest leadership level is Platinum Presidential – and as far as I know, there has only been one person in Australia (none in NZ) who has reached that level in all the years Mannatech has been operating here – not sure if he’d still be qualifying at that level.
Sugarmums are also encouraged to enrol family members – including children, and placing extra products through these business centres. People are also encouraged to purchase leads & do lots of advertising. From what I understand, all the details of prospects that are gathered by the team’s efforts in advertising etc are also captured by Lucilla & James.
I have found a better home business opportunity with a duplicatable system as well as lots of support and mentoring. As for the products – I have also found better products than the Mannatech products.
There is alot more I could and want to say, but am concerned about further repercussions from corporate Mannatech, Sugarmums team members including Lucilla. Seems they dont like the truth being told.
I hope that’s provided some further insight for people about the Sugarmums team.
Thanks for sharing your story ex-sugarmum. Definitely sounds as if it’s a bit of an uphill battle to get anwhere with Sugarmums and Mannatech.
Those marketing tactics are a bit of a worry too as generally marketing to family and friends is only going to get you so far.
Hi Ex sugarmum, would be very interested in the other home business you’ve found. If possible that is!
I wouldn’t want you having a problem if you do though! But would be greatly appreciated!
I must say I have had a giggle at some of the comments on this forum.
All I can say personally about Lucilla and I have known her in business for over 10 years is that she has 3 B’s, Beauty, Business Acumen and Brains, with that coupled with the heart and soul of Mother Theresa.
Her motto was to the team “By Serving others you became free”, she would do training calls and webinars for her team at 2-3am her time in Australia, not many leaders would do that.
Her support was life changing, and she gave her all in helping the poor start their business, and yes sometimes had more time coaching those in desperate need, whether it was about their business or picking themselves up off the floor, but that was just her.
She once told me she was going to be a nun but she found James at the last minute, and I mean last minute, fate she knows as she could serve others more now than ever being in god’s presence, I will never ever forget that conversation.
She loves helping those in serious need, and yes she would do anything for her team, even legal matters, as if people do something wrong she would not rest on her laurels. If people are scared of her legal intervention then they obviously were doing something illegal, as you can’t go legal in USA or Australia I believe without a definite case.
When I first met Lucilla and James at Mannafest, I was shocked with her supermodel looks, and I could tell that she would get a lot of flak from other jealous women, and yes some in my team did that also, as she is beautiful both inside and out.
She walked in and had a absolute aura of kindness and shyness and others noticed it too, and when she spoke, she was one of those rare individual leaders that you truly look up to as a role model. I just wish I lived in Australia to be around those two more.
If you ever read this Lucilla, you have totally impacted my life, given me hope, given me a life I never imagined, our discussions even helped my faltering marriage at the time, and now I still remember the lessons you taught me. God brang you into this world to meet so many and to change their life, and for that we are forever grateful.
Mike
Eternally grateful
Alright so you’ve got an obvious hard on for Lucille (your poor wife!), meanwhile what does that have to do with Mannatech, glyconutrients or their business model?
Yeah hello i got an email notification too.
Looks like nothing much as changed in regards to the types of people attracted to these. Plenty of sugarcoating about how wonderful everyone and everything is, and of course, the usual spiritual crap about Mother Theresa (you mean Mother Teresa?), “fate”, “god”, “aura”, etc..
Oh, and of course, nothing at all mentioned about the main subject, how much cash is actually being
lostmade..And what’s with using “brang”? That’s a word now? Is that you Warwick Capper?
@Mike — since we never talked ill of Lucille (or whatever her name is), and you NEVER mentioned a word about SugarMums or Mannatech, it’s clear you just come here to rave about Lu-whatever. So I do wonder : do you have the hots for her or something?
No I am a man in my 70’s, very impressed with her in Mannatech and her as a leader.
All this sounds real interesting. I don’t believe there will be an answer to the question of the validity of Mannatech Products until the government researches it.
No one believes the results produced under studies that are funded by Mannatech. They call it a biased study.
I don’t think there are very many other people that will fund any research if they aren’t going to make a profit from it. So I don’t think anyone will have proof without trying it themselves.
Good luck folks, I have seen it help.
There are plenty of REAL research into glycobiology, which is a real field. It’s when REAL EXPERTS in glycobiology that came out and said Mannatech’s products are bull****, that people started paying attention, both for and against.
You may have seen it “help”, but that’s hardly a scientific study where you have enough of a sample size to filter out sunken cost fallacy, placebo effect, and so on and so forth.
Even studies funded by Mannatech had conflicting results in Australia. Of course, the one that does show some results is the one that gets quoted, not the one where no significant results are found.
So, all in all, there’s no proof that glyconutrients do anything for the body. Thus, paying for such would be, well, debatable.
Cheer ppl.
In the not to distant future I hope to be doing a PhD in the field, so in 3 years there well may be some solid results.
I am all for education. 🙂 Not so much for endorsements. 🙂
Just read all these old comments about SugarMums and Lucilla Howison.
Let me tell you their is no more SugarMums Lucilla the hypercritical woman that has gone against everything she believed and taught has quit Manantech. Only to join Organo Gold and she and others in the SugarMums team and took all the remaining people from Mannatech to her super cheap instant coffee team.
Don’t trust this women she is only your friend when your in her team paying your auto ship order every month.
If you stop working your biz due to a personal reason or whatever, she will become a stranger to you. And all that bull crap of her hyping you up telling lies that she will work with you and support you. And be your (best)close friend is all bull shit as long as you are paying for your auto ship order, and working the biz.
Seriously this women needs to go back to work she has been home way to long and has no social skills in the real world.
I am shocked of her actions how can you follow this women when she went against everything she believed in and taught her team.
It’s so obvious she only cares about YOUR MONEY! Same with a few others but I wont mention their names here. They know who the are! I’ts time to bring it on!
She is no better than Marie Taylor!
Well all these comments are interesting to read! I have been having a little giggle as it went on and on and on and on (you get what I mean).
I am a VERY disgruntled Ex-Sugarmum because after working the business every day for over two years, I was still shelling out more money than was ever coming in. My biggest cheque I got was $500 (only once) and that was because some poor bugger paid out $1500 to join and others had put their orders in that month.
By the way, I had over 550 people in my downline and don’t believe it when you think they are all going to order every month.
Yes, there was so-called training weekly BUT as stated earlier in the comments there was lot’s of giggling and ‘sweetie’ comments by Lucilla, so was a complete waste of my time.
If the Sugarmums Team is still going it is only because some silly person is trying to hang on to threads that were fraying a long long time ago.
YOU CANNOT MAKE A RESIDUAL INCOME IN A MANNATECH BUSINESS, oh, maybe if you have thousands of dollars to play with and lose, you might have a chance……NOT!
I am sooooo happy that I got out when I did and have found a business venture now that DOES pay and support and training is available to me, as often or as seldom as I choose.
Good Luck to all those still looking, I hope you find what you need.
Doe’s anyone know the difference between the polysaccharides in each of the companies that are peddling them out there? Mannatech has its own set that it says are absolutely essential, but then other companies have different ones?.