or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Juice Plus? - Page 3

post #41 of 132
Wow.

I used to be a JP distributor. I still think it is a decent product. I know people with good diets prior who had some great results. Self included. I never experienced any coercion to contribute more money as a distributor. I had my carotenoid levels checked prior and after being on the product for four months, and they significantly improved. Same with dh. We switched to a different product recently because we find it to be a superior product (wasn't at the time we started JP), and our carotenoid scores increased even more after we had plateaued on JP.

BTW, any website that has "watch" at the end of it probably isn't a reliable source of information. Stephen Barrett has lost too many court cases to have credibility.
post #42 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiro_kristin View Post
I never experienced any coercion to contribute more money as a distributor.
Just curious…did you get the impression that I was suggesting that coercion is typically used. The distributor expenses I mentioned were referred to as “highly encouraged”, which is fair and accurate. NSA runs a huge collateral JP business selling promotional materials and training for distributors to grow their customer base and JP incomes. The expenditures I spoke of ARE highly encouraged as a means for growing business. It is obvious that many distributors do make such expenditures, since there are literally thousands of JP distributor websites that use the generic NSA template, which is provided when one pays the hefty additional monthly fees for such service. Almost every distributor I have encountered also strongly promotes the JP Children’s Research Foundation to their prospective customers, and as I pointed out earlier, distributors are required to give a $360 “donation” to the Foundation in order to be allowed to enroll participants. Obviously NSA is taking in a lot of collateral revenue through these activities, and they are costing distributors a lot of money.

But none of this was pivotal to the point I was trying to make. I was emphasizing that JP offers a dreadful cost/benefit ratio and would take up an unjustifiable proportion of the average American family’s food budget. Distributor expenses only aggravate the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiro_kristin View Post
I had my carotenoid levels checked prior and after being on the product for four months, and they significantly improved...and our carotenoid scores increased even more after we had plateaued on JP.
A company called Pharmanex promotes an in-office skin carotenoid test, and some chiros perform it and charge their clients for the service, but free radical/antioxidant biochemists consider it to be fairly useless and unreliable (a very good critique on the Pharmanex test was published by Hammond et al. Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 2004;122:544-545). If this was the test you were referring to, then I wonder why you think it is important to have very high beta-carotene levels in the skin? Skin carotenoid levels are in no way indicative of overall antioxidant status or carotenoid levels in other parts of the body. Jacking up one's skin carotenoid levels is not considered to have any beneficial effects, with the possible exception of skin cancer prevention, and even then, the levels don't need to be extraordinarily high. And as you are probably aware, there are several studies that have shown that taking supplemental beta-carotene can increase the risk for certain diseases, such as lung cancer.

In any case, it should come as no surprise that a product like JP, which has high doses of beta-carotene added to it, can result in elevated skin carotenoid levels. But an important fact to consider is that JP does not offer a range of different carotenoids, just beta-carotene. Two studies showed that taking JP did not result in increased blood levels of the carotenoids lycopene and lutein (Samman et al 2003; Smith et al 1999), which are important antioxidant components of fruits and vegetables. Lutein intake, for example, has been suggested to have a positive effect on age-related macular degeneration. A chemical analysis conducted by a competitor (GNLD International) also showed that JP contained no lycopene or lutein.

Lastly, the beta-carotene added to JP doesn’t even come from those 15 fruits and vegetables the product is said to contain; it comes from the saltwater algae Dunaliella salina, which is not even in the human food chain. I find that to be extremely deceptive as well, but I guess “17 different fruits, veggies, grains, and algae” wouldn’t read too well on the promo pamphlets, and a bowl of waterlogged slime wouldn’t look too enticing sitting next to the cornucopia of fruits and veggies in the glossy photos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiro_kristin View Post
BTW, any website that has "watch" at the end of it probably isn't a reliable source of information. Stephen Barrett has lost too many court cases to have credibility.
Since your user name indicates that you are a chiropractor, I can fully understand why you might not like Barrett, who runs ChiroWatch and has been highly critical of the chiropractic profession. Nonetheless, we all know that ad hominem attacks are intellectually dishonest and they do nothing to negate Barrett’s comments about JP. Neither does losing an unrelated court case have any bearing on Barrett’s credibility in this context. Was there something in particular that Barrett said about JP that you disagree with or are you just dismissing him entirely because of his position on chiro or some other area unrelated to JP?

I don’t care to comment on his general credibility but I did go through his JP articles carefully and found them to be insightful, original, and factually accurate, which is all I need to know. His comments on JP are certainly more credible and honest than those of any JP spokespersons I have encountered. If anything, Barrett could have gone even deeper in his expose, since there are many additional reasons to be critical of JP beyond those he mentioned.

I have witnessed on many occasions how JP distributors try to viciously smear this guy’s reputation, and tactics like that immediately cause me to be suspicious of the attacker. I have never seen a single case where they attacked the issues rather than the person. If what he said about JP was actually wrong, then it would be much easier to convince people of that than to convince them that he is disreputable, which has been the preferred strategy.
post #43 of 132
FWIW and totally OT: I have surfed Quackwatch and the related sites many times for many different reasons (specifically in regards to the vaccine/autism link) and I have to say there is probably no other site that infuriates me more. I respect that some people have different philosophies on holistic living; but those sites are so offensively ridiculous my blood pressure is rising just thinking about it.

And I'm not infering this is what chiro_kristen is saying, but for me personally I have never found anything on Stephen Barrett's site that I agree with. Ever. So to use him as a reference automatically negates the objectivity of a particular argument, simply because I don't trust his bias.

Which really has nothing to do with Juice Plus. I just had to pipe up. Sorry!
post #44 of 132
No problem. Pipe away. I can understand why Barrett upsets some people, but when it comes to JP, he never said anything that was untrue. Just as a reminder, the criticism of JP does not emanate from Barrett alone; he is but one of many critics of this product. One must put personal feelings aside and look only at the substance of the arguments. We have to be willing to concede when someone makes a reasonable argument, even if that person is someone we don’t really like or generally agree with.
post #45 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenda Damachuk View Post
No problem. Pipe away. I can understand why Barrett upsets some people, but when it comes to JP, he never said anything that was untrue. Just as a reminder, the criticism of JP does not emanate from Barrett alone; he is but one of many critics of this product. One must put personal feelings aside and look only at the substance of the arguments. We have to be willing to concede when someone makes a reasonable argument, even if that person is someone we don’t really like or generally agree with.
Oh, I totally agree. Although I have to say it really bugs me that I might (should I care to ever really research JP) ever agree with him . And I've enjoyed the information you've given so far as someone who really is inpartial. I just couldn't not point out that on any given day just mentioning him makes me immediately disregard the POV of the message, simply because I think he is beyond ridiculous. (Did I already mention he's absolutely, laughably ridiculous?)

Ok. I'll let it go. Really. Right now.
post #46 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by granolamomma View Post
Oh, I totally agree. Although I have to say it really bugs me that I might (should I care to ever really research JP) ever agree with him . And I've enjoyed the information you've given so far as someone who really is inpartial. I just couldn't not point out that on any given day just mentioning him makes me immediately disregard the POV of the message, simply because I think he is beyond ridiculous. (Did I already mention he's absolutely, laughably ridiculous?)

Ok. I'll let it go. Really. Right now.
I know, it sucks when you someone you can’t stand takes your side in an argument. Almost makes you want to switch sides!
post #47 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenda Damachuk View Post
The expenditures I spoke of ARE highly encouraged as a means for growing business. It is obvious that many distributors do make such expenditures, since there are literally thousands of JP distributor websites that use the generic NSA template, which is provided when one pays the hefty additional monthly fees for such service.
Well, it is $15 per month, not sure everyone would consider that hefty and it is not required unless you want to give someone a website to order from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenda Damachuk View Post
Almost every distributor I have encountered also strongly promotes the JP Children’s Research Foundation to their prospective customers, and as I pointed out earlier, distributors are required to give a $360 “donation” to the Foundation in order to be allowed to enroll participants.
Well, it is interesting that I have never paid this $360 "donation" and I recommend the Children's Research Foundation to family and friends and they are on it. Again, not sure what manual you are reading, but MINE does not say this and my paychecks don't show it either.

If someone wants to take Juice Plus as an adult, why not get a child on it for free in the process?

There are thousands of people taking Juice Plus every month and many for many many years. They are all very happy with it. Everyone needs to make their own choice for their health. Some people take over the counter vitamins, some take natural vitamins from the health food store, some choose whole food supplementation, and others choose to add one of the juices that is on the market to their diet. That is the beauty of this world. We all can make choices for ourselves, and it is ultimately up to us to decide what we want to do.

And as far as the comment to me about not providing proof of docs that are recommending Juice Plus and not distributors, they don't have websites for the most part because they are just individual docs trying to help their patients out. There are at least two here in the city that I live in.

A doctor that is no affiliated with NSA/Juice Plus that recommends the product is Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld from FoxNews. He says that vitamins in bottles made in lab are not good and does not recommend them because he does not think they are absorbed. But he does recommend Juice Plus and has said so on the air a few times.
post #48 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLDoula View Post
If someone wants to take Juice Plus as an adult, why not get a child on it for free in the process?
Why not? How about the fact that the Children’s Research Foundation is using its tax-exempt status and the funds provided by new distributors to subsidize sales of the product under the fraudulent guise of contributing to research on children’s health? This organization has been in existence for 9 years and has collected over a million taxpayer-subsidized dollars but has not produced one iota of published research data and seems to have no intention of ever doing so. If it were in fact a research foundation, it would have to be judged as a miserable failure by any objective standards.

I also find it incredibly dishonest that NSA is not forthcoming about it's direct control of the Foundation. The JPCRF is nothing more than an office within NSA headquarters and it is controlled by senior executives of NSA. Yet NSA is not mentioned anywhere on the JPCRF website and the foundation is deceptively presented as an independent research organization.

I think those are all pretty valid reasons as to why one should not participate in the program. This exploitation of children under the guise of research is one of NSAs most transparent and shameful promotional scams, and I honestly don’t see how anyone who knows the truth could ever, in good conscience, promote the JPCRF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLDoula View Post
There are thousands of people taking Juice Plus every month and many for many many years. They are all very happy with it.
That seems arbitrary and misleading. What efforts has anyone made to accurately monitor the thousands of people who may have tried JP, and to distinguish who among them were happy with it and who were not? If NSA had at least published reliable data showing a high percentage of repeat customers over the course of several years (and they have not), that would be one thing, but absent that, why make such a tenuous claim? I very strongly suspect the opposite to be true, i.e. a very low percentage of new customers return after the first or second order.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLDoula View Post
Everyone needs to make their own choice for their health….That is the beauty of this world. We all can make choices for ourselves, and it is ultimately up to us to decide what we want to do.
Yes, and in order to make good choices, people need honest, reliable information. Misleading information, illegal disease treatment claims, and high-pressure sales pitches help no one except for those who stand to profit from JP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLDoula View Post
And as far as the comment to me about not providing proof of docs that are recommending Juice Plus and not distributors, they don't have websites for the most part because they are just individual docs trying to help their patients out. There are at least two here in the city that I live in.
Yes, it seems so demanding of people when they ask for evidence to back up extraordinary claims about the health benefits of overpriced, nutrient-deficient multivitamins. If these doctors were seeing anything miraculous with JP, like disease cures or reduction of symptoms, why wouldn’t they be telling the world by publishing case reports in the medical journals instead of allowing the information to be disseminated by distributors? But just for kicks, why don’t you provide us with the names of the 2 doctors to whom you are referring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLDoula View Post
A doctor that is no affiliated with NSA/Juice Plus that recommends the product is Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld from FoxNews. He says that vitamins in bottles made in lab are not good and does not recommend them because he does not think they are absorbed. But he does recommend Juice Plus and has said so on the air a few times.
Ah yes, Rosenfeld. Anytime someone points out that virtually every endorser of the product is on the payroll, distributors always resort to this one sad, lone example. Is this the only person on record who ever recommended JP and did not have a financial interest in the product (and we don’t even know for certain that he doesn’t)? Merely parroting 20 seconds of NSA promotional-speak, as he did, does not constitute a meaningful endorsement. Rosenfeld’s only statements on JP consisted of two very brief sound bites on Fox news that were identical verbatim to what can be found in a JP brochure. He never provided any details as to why he recommends JP and never said anything that would counter the criticism of the product. He has never commented publicly on JP since then and we don't know whether he would stand by his previous comments if he were asked today.
post #49 of 132

Isadore Rosenfeld

Let’s look a little more closely at the example that was provided of an allegedly independent authority, Isadore Rosenfled, who recommended JP. I criticized this example as being superifical and essentially useless, and wanted to show my justification for saying so.

Rosenfeld made his comments quite a long time ago; 2002 to be exact. His two brief sound bites were run by Fox on Sunday Housecall: Covered From Head to Toe. They were both exactly 55 seconds in length and seemed to be nothing more than commercials for JP. There was no substance whatsoever to his comments and he seemed to follow NSAs marketing script to the letter. He was asked two questions. These questions and his exact replies were as follows:

Announcer: “Are fruit juice pills a good substitute for fruit?”
Rosenfeld: “That’s a very interesting question. Look, there is no doubt that eating the fruit itself is the best thing to do. But you…in order to really benefit from…from…from fruit, you’ve got to have 5 to 7 servings a day. Now most people can’t…don’t have the opportunity to eat fruit and vegetables 5 times…5 to 7 times a day, so some of these pills are good. The one that I like, and I have no commercial interest in it, is one called Juice Plus, because if you take the capsules in the morning and the capsules in the afternoon, it gives you, in effect, the same as 7 servings of fruits and vegetables. It’s the closest thing to the real thing.”

His statement was superficial and the claim that JP “gives you in effect, the same as 7 servings of fruits and vegetables” is just plain wrong; so wrong that I have to wonder whether he is purposely lying or is just an idiot. To name but a few examples that contradict his claim, JP in actuality provides a very small fraction of the fiber, potassium, and antioxidant activity of even ONE serving of the real thing. This data is in the public domain. Four JP caps provide: (a) only 1 g of fiber, while a single apple or orange provides more than 3 g; (b) a mere 90 mg of potassium vs. 350 mg in a 6 oz glass of OJ; and (c) the antioxidant activity of only 30 g (roughly one-third of a serving) of fresh produce (according to a 1996 study by Chambers et al.).

Announcer: “Does this (JP) work?”
Rosenfeld: “OK. Alright, let me tell you something. First of all I have no relationship with Juice Plus…I have no commercial or other relationship, so this is not a commercial. I believe that people should eat 5 to 7 servings of fruits and vegetables every day. That is not always possible but that is the preferred way to get your fruits and vegetables. If you can’t, this particular product -- which is a dried…they…they…they dry the fresh fruits and vegetables -- is very well made and is the closest thing that I know to…to fresh fruits and vegetables. They…my grandchildren have it…they have a…take it, they have a…a child’s version, they even have a pet version, and we use it in our family. I can’t always get 5 fruits and vegetables a day; I take it. There are some data that indicates it does in fact protect.”

A high school student could have provided more insightful answers than these! And why did he repeatedly deny having a financial interest? No one ever asked him such a question nor did they suggest that he did have a financial interest.
post #50 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenda Damachuk View Post
as I pointed out earlier, distributors are required to give a $360 “donation” to the Foundation in order to be allowed to enroll participants. Obviously NSA is taking in a lot of collateral revenue through these activities, and they are costing distributors a lot of money.
I'm not going to go dig out my manual, but I have helped people get into this program and I don't know anything about the donation. And I certainly would have heard about it had those people in the program been asked for the donation.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenda Damachuk View Post
A company called Pharmanex promotes an in-office skin carotenoid test, and some chiros perform it and charge their clients for the service, but free radical/antioxidant biochemists consider it to be fairly useless and unreliable (a very good critique on the Pharmanex test was published by Hammond et al. Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 2004;122:544-545). If this was the test you were referring to, then I wonder why you think it is important to have very high beta-carotene levels in the skin? Skin carotenoid levels are in no way indicative of overall antioxidant status or carotenoid levels in other parts of the body. Jacking up one's skin carotenoid levels is not considered to have any beneficial effects, with the possible exception of skin cancer prevention, and even then, the levels don't need to be extraordinarily high. And as you are probably aware, there are several studies that have shown that taking supplemental beta-carotene can increase the risk for certain diseases, such as lung cancer.

Can you quote some of these studies? Not denying that they exist, just asking. I'd be happy to answer the rest of this at a later time, but I'm about to hit the hay before an early morning. Actually, since you've already made up your mind about these types of supplements, if anyone else would like to know about this subject, start a thread and PM me as to its existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenda Damachuk View Post
Was there something in particular that Barrett said about JP that you disagree with or are you just dismissing him entirely because of his position on chiro or some other area unrelated to JP?

I gladly admit I have never read his pages on JP. From what I have read, in addition to chirowatch, I find him to be an expert on nothing except his "exposes" (and possibly psychiatry per his degree). To go into this further would be incredibly OT, so to discuss how SB attacking JP is okay but JP attacking SB isn't, would be moot.
post #51 of 132
Okay, I couldn't resist. I'm terribly sorry that this has gotten incredibly OT. Please don't continue to read this post if you are only interested in reading about JP. Well, I don't know, maybe this still would be of interest as I am talking about antioxidants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenda Damachuk View Post
Free radical/antioxidant biochemists consider it to be fairly useless and unreliable (a very good critique on the Pharmanex test was published by Hammond et al. Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 2004;122:544-545).
The scanner in 2006 is different than it was in 2004. That was ONE critique. Do you have others, and more current ones? Pharmanex has over 130 PhD scientists, MDs, biochemists, etc on staff. Sure they are paid, but 130! Lester Packer, PhD, the father of the whole antioxidant theory, gives his seal of approval to the biophotonic scanner (the old one, not even the new one). He is not being paid by the company. They have a scientific advisory board of unpaid scientists who regulate. Lester Packer is one of them. [/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenda Damachuk View Post
I wonder why you think it is important to have very high beta-carotene levels in the skin?
Beta carotene is one of many skin carotenoids, including lycopene, astaxanthin, zeaxanthin, phytofluene, lutein, gamma carotene, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenda Damachuk View Post
Skin carotenoid levels are in no way indicative of overall antioxidant status or carotenoid levels in other parts of the body.
Carotenoids themselves are potent antioxidants. Tsuchiya and colleagues wrote in 1994 that a typical carotenoid molecule is able to sustain more than 23 free radical hits before being completely destroyed (Methods of Enzymology 1994). Also, obviously if the carotenoid molecules are appearing in the skin, they have been absorbed by other cells of the body, along with their presumptive antioxidant effects. Tsuchiya and colleagues, with Lester Packer (father of the antioxidant theory) as a coauthor, also published the first paper on this topic in 1992. Setting their own potently beneficial effects aside, and focusing on applied levels of other antioxidants, it is important to note that as early as 1995, correlation between levels of carotenoids as well as other antioxidants, specifically tocopherols, were noted (Pang and colleagues, Nutrition and Cancer). In terms of disease prevention, Stahl and Sies in Biochim Biophs Acta also reviewed that the consumption of a diet rich in carotenoids (which would show up in the skin and be measurable) has been epidemiologically correlated with a lower risk for several diseases.

Carotenoid action involves interference in several pathways related to cancer cell proliferation and includes changes in the expression of many proteins participating in these processes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenda Damachuk View Post
And as you are probably aware, there are several studies that have shown that taking supplemental beta-carotene can increase the risk for certain diseases, such as lung cancer.
Again, I would like to have these references, as I wonder what kind of beta carotene is being used. GNC brand or the like? Not all supplements are created equal.


Just to drive the point home about carotenoids being a predictor of other antioxidants, Svilaas and colleagues examined the consumption of fruits and vegetables and measured serum carotenoids as well as other more conventionally measured water soluble antioxidants in 2670 adults (General Nutrition 2004). They found that the ability of carotenoids to predict serum levels of other antioxidants was stronger than the predictive ability of alpha, beta, delta and gamma tocopherols, as well as glutathione. In other words, the level of carotenoids is actually more important than the total level of vitamin E - a much more conventionally cited antioxidant - and inferring the total antioxidant protective level of the system.

I have to echo FLDoula's sentiment but in a more curious manner... are you a interent/research-scouring Brenda Q Public, or are you affiliated with a certain product or company, or are you a researcher, scientist, nutritionist, or hcp of any type? What is your education level in the matter? I'm not saying you have to be a "something" in order to be knowledgeable, I'm just curious.
post #52 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiro_kristin View Post
Can you quote some of these studies? Not denying that they exist, just asking.
OK but I know we are getting off topic, so I’ll post this last reply here and then join you on a different thread if you wish.

I am not sure which studies you were referring to precisely but I’ll try to elaborate in general and hope to hit on the ones you were looking for. I provided one reference that outlines some of the limitations and weaknesses of the Pharmanex method (Hammond et al. Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 2004;122:544-545).). Many of the other points are either established facts or based on common sense. There is no debating that what the Pharmanex test (based on biophotonic Raman spectroscopy) actually measures are total carotenoids in skin. That’s what it was developed to do (Hata et al. J Invest Dermatol 2000;15:441–448). The method does not allow for meaningful inferences about total antioxidant status in the body because (a) the carotenoids are but one of many different classes of antioxidants that contribute to antioxidant status, some of which are endogenous and some of which are obtained through the diet; and (b) the uptake of dietary antioxidants and the levels of endogenous antioxidants differ greatly among different tissue/cell/organelle types, so the antioxidant status of the skin bears no relationship to antioxidant status at these other sites. Lastly, the paper I cited above outlines many technical issues that question the ability of this method to even measure skin carotenoids accurately. Tests for antioxidant status that are considered to be reliable include direct blood or cell measurements of specific antioxidants, or GC assays of free radical byproducts such 8-OH-dG and isoprostanes, but that would be expensive and impractical in the absence of a medical necessity. I have looked at some of the Pharmanex scanner research and did not see anything to convince me of its value to consumers.

This may seem OT, but it is actually important to consider with respect to JP and other antioxidant supplements. Many laypeople have a very simplistic notion as to the characteristics of free radicals and antioxidants and how they can influence disease. They often think that merely flooding the body with some dietary antioxidants is a panacea for prevention and treatment, but it isn’t. The underlying biochemistry is quite complex and there are technical issues that most non-experts wouldn’t really understand, such as reduction-oxidation potentials, selective targeting of tissues, extracellular vs cytoplasmic vs nuclear sites of action, etc. Many people also fail to realize that free radicals are produced normally by the body and in some cases they serve important functions, such as in the immune response of certain white blood cells, the metabolism of toxins in the liver, the control of vascular tone, and intracellular signaling. When you flood a cell with exogenous antioxidants there is always a risk of interfering with some useful biologic process, which could have detrimental effects. This leads back to the studies I mentioned earlier about increased lung cancer risk among smokers who took beta-carotene supplements. One of the studies was published by Goodman et al (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1743-50). Other studies have also shown that antioxidants can have negative effects on diseases. Hope this helps


Quote:
Originally Posted by chiro_kristin View Post
Actually, since you've already made up your mind about these types of supplements...
No, I haven’t…honestly. I have made up my mind about JP because NSA simply went way too far out on a limb with fraudulent marketing and lame research and there is too much negative evidence to ignore. I am guessing that you perhaps sell the Pharmanex supplements, and I haven’t looked in to them yet. But I do know which questions you would need to ask to evaluate the product’s composition and the validity of the manufacturer’s claims. Just let me know if you ever want my 2 cents. I’ll just warn you in advance, be wary about megadosing with beta-carotene. Many people seem to follow a philosophy of “if some is enough, then more than enough must be better”. There is no reason to think that getting more than the RDA for beta-carotene is good for you, and as I pointed out earlier, there is some fairly compelling evidence that it can be harmful.

I’ll go even farther out on a limb and suggest to you, as a fellow health professional, that your clients would be best served if you could devise effective ways to get them to modify their diets rather than take supplements. You are in a unique position to make a real difference in that regard. Promote the message that it’s NOT difficult to eat 7 or more servings of produce a day if one makes the right efforts. Teach them how to eat properly. Encourage variety and stress the importance of planning for time to shop and prepare good foods. Create sample grocery lists that include a variety of healthy foods for people to choose when they go shopping. Find and recommend good recipe books and healthy eating magazines. If you have a clinic newsletter, include a list of fruits and vegetables that are in season every month. I don’t know if those particular ideas would make a difference but at least you get an idea of where I’m going.

The dilemma is that you are also a businessperson and selling supplements provides cash flow. So with that in mind, I would just encourage you to only recommend supplements that list all of their ingredients, contain a good range and amount of nutrients and antioxidants, do not greatly exceed RDAs, and are not sold by companies that make outrageous or unsupported claims. Lastly, think about price as well. The jury is not out yet as to whether supplements really offer much of a benefit to health for most people, so think of the supplement as potential insurance and then look for one with the best cost to benefit ratio. Unnecessary healthcare expenditures can definitely have a negative impact. Good luck to you and thanks for listening…

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiro_kristin View Post
To go into this further would be incredibly OT, so to discuss how SB attacking JP is okay but JP attacking SB isn't, would be moot.
Yes, I guess that's a reasonable point. Fair is fair. However, people can attack Barrett all they want, and I don’t really care if they do, but it still doesn’t make him wrong about JP. As I said before, if he presented facts on JP that were incorrect, they should be pointed out.
post #53 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiro_kristin View Post
Okay, I couldn't resist. I'm terribly sorry that this has gotten incredibly OT. Please don't continue to read this post if you are only interested in reading about JP. Well, I don't know, maybe this still would be of interest as I am talking about antioxidants.
You raised some good questions and I would be happy to offer my thoughts, but perhaps we should start a new thread.
post #54 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiro_kristin View Post
Okay, I couldn't resist. I'm terribly sorry that this has gotten incredibly OT. Please don't continue to read this post if you are only interested in reading about JP. Well, I don't know, maybe this still would be of interest as I am talking about antioxidants.
I just couldn't resist one more reply before we move this to a new thread.

It’s so funny that you would mention Lester Packer. It reminds me of story from when I was a graduate student attending one of my first big international research meetings on free radicals and antioxidants. I saw that Lester Packer was giving a talk, and I was familiar with him because he was getting media exposure at the time. I brought up his name to an expert researcher and was surprised when he dismissed Packer as a bit of hack. It took me a few more years before I really understood why. Packer made some notable contributions a long, long time ago and then opted for the media spotlight instead of pursuing cutting edge research. What we know about free radicals and antioxidants today goes far beyond the simplistic concepts that prevailed when Packer was in his prime. Since then, he has stayed on the sidelines instead of the front lines. Think of the real experts as the guys in combat and Packer as the retired colonel sitting at home stateside resting on his laurels and watching the war on CNN. There are many, many active 5-star general researchers whose opinions carry far more weight than Packer. I haven’t asked them about the Pharmanex test but I am quite confident that their opinions wouldn’t differ much from mine. So, sorry to say, Packer’s seal of approval means absolutely nothing to me, it just makes me groan a bit. I haven’t seen the rest of the Pharmanex advisory board and have no idea what they are saying about the test, but just bear in mind that merely serving as an advisor is not the same as an endorsement. If you have any links for the ad board, let me know and I’ll get back to you.

I am curious to know why you think the Pharamanex test offers value to patients because I don't see how it could. Let’s say it was able to detect whether someone’s skin carotenoids levels are low. So what? What do you we do next? Tell them to eat more fruits and vegetables? That’s what we should be telling them to do anyway, so there is no value for the patient to spend money on a test to tell them what they probably already know. Another possibility is that you would recommend a supplement. But again, why should someone have to pay money for a test whose results only tell them that they should be taking a multivitamin? They can do that for 5 cents a day without the need for an expensive test. What if you test someone who already takes beta-carotene supplements and they show high skin carotenoids on the Pharmanex test? What does that tell you? It doesn’t tell you that their general nutritional intake or overall antioxidant status is good; it only tells you that they are storing excess beta-carotene from the supplement in their skin. The test doesn’t distinguish between different types of carotenoids and if someone is taking a supplement that is high in beta-carotene, the test results will only reflect beta-carotene storage.

Is this test useful for monitoring improvements in carotenoid levels during supplementation? It’s hard to say for sure but unlikely. We don’t even know whether the test can distinguish between adequate intake and suboptimal intake of carotenoids. Is the test sensitive enough to detect the relatively small difference in skin carotenoid levels resulting from marginal vs. adequate intake or can the test only detect the differences when someone takes unnecessarily high doses of beta-carotene? Remember the goal is to get enough, not to get too much.

What would we do differently if we gave someone a carotenoid supplement and they did not show increased carotenoid levels on the test? Would you up the dose without knowing why they weren’t absorbing it in the first place? That probably would not be wise. All in all, I just don’t see the value in this test for consumers. I see its value as twofold: (1) it is a billable procedure that generates revenue for the HCP, and (2) it is a good way for Pharmanex to convince people to buy their supplements, even though the validity of test itself and the need for the supplement is questionable.

We can go over some of your other points in the new thread. I'm enjoying the discussion very much so far.
post #55 of 132
By the way, when I said it was "funny" that you mentioned Packer, I just meant funny as in coincidental. Hope it didn't come across as mocking in any way.
post #56 of 132
I started a new thread, Brenda.
post #57 of 132
I was skeptical at first too!!! My pediatrician recommended it first when I switched to him about a year and a half ago. I said no, no again, and then we finally tried it after I did some research. Now I'm a believer!! We've been taking it for more than a year and I just signed up to be a distributor. I also wrote a review of the product at Bella:

Product Review: Juice Plus
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art36465.asp
post #58 of 132

Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch

Quackbusters "Horse-Whipped" by Missouri Supreme Court...



Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen



Wednesday, March 23rd, 2005



The North American "quackbuster" operation is scrambling for survival - because, among other things, the American Court System is "horse-whipping" them.



I just received word about a new Supreme Court Case Decision involving an attack on an innovative health practitioner, Edward W. McDonagh, D.O., from Missouri , who had the common sense to use chelation therapy on his heart patients.



Of course his patients got better, and of course the State, blindly following the recommendations, and the nonsensical statements, found on delicensed MD Stephen Barrett's ludicrous "quackwatch.com" website, tried to take this dedicated healer's license to practice medicine away from him.



They failed.



Not only did they fail, but the resulting Supreme Court Decision has become a landmark, and will be used across the land, as "case law" whenever any State agency is dumb enough, or sleazy enough, to use the "quackbusters" or "quackbuster" dogma, as a resource. The case decision had a lot to say about a lot of issues.



The final words of the Missouri Supreme Court Decision are: "This case needs to be over. The board should end the case itself rather than suffer the indignity of further adverse commission and judicial rulings, to say nothing of the waste of public resources that such proceedings will entail."



You can read the whole decision by clicking here. When you go to the page you'll find the decision in two parts. The first part (in green text) is the decision of the Missouri Appeals Court . The second part (in black text) is the words of the Missouri Supreme Court.



Here's what one of the Missouri Supreme Court Justices said about the State's action against Doctor McDonagh, and some of the bigoted assumptions made by the State in the McDonagh case:



Physicians are afforded considerable leeway in the use of professional judgment to decide on appropriate treatments, especially when applying the negligence standard. For instance, Hasse v. Garfinkel, 418 S.W.2d 108, 114 (Mo. 1967), a medical negligence case, holds that "as long as there is room for an honest difference of opinion among competent physicians, a physician who uses his own best judgment cannot be convicted of negligence, even though it may afterward develop that he was mistaken." "Negligence" does not seem an appropriate concept where the physician has studied the problem and has made a treatment recommendation, even though that is not the prevailing view of the majority of the profession. The lack of general acceptance of a treatment does not necessarily constitute a breach of the standard of care. The use of negligence in licensing situations, in the absence of harm or danger, is particularly inappropriate.


One could argue that because chelation therapy is not accepted by mainstream medicine and is an off-label practice not approved by the FDA, it is therefore harmful and dangerous. If that were the board's position, the licensing statute would thwart advances in medical science. A dramatic example is the treatment of stomach ulcers, which were long thought to be caused by stress. In 1982, two Australians found the bacterium helicobacter pylori in the stomach linings of ulcer victims. Because helicobacter pylori is a bacterium, some physicians -- a minority to be sure -- began prescribing antibiotics to treat stomach ulcers as an infectious disease. The National Institutes of Health did not recognize antibiotic therapy until 1994; the FDA approved the first antibiotic for use in treating stomach ulcers in 1996; and the Centers for Disease Control began publicizing the treatment in 1997. Today’s physicians accept as fact that most stomach ulcers are primarily caused by helicobacter pylori bacteria infection and not by stress. (FN6) But, by the chronology of this discovery, if a physician in the late 1980s or early 1990s had treated ulcers with antibiotics, that treatment would have been "negligent" as the board in this case interprets that term because inappropriate use of antibiotics can be dangerous."



Delicensed MD Stephen Barrett, and his nefarious website "quackwatch.com," the "quackbuster's" " bible, is being dropped, as a resource, almost EVERYWHERE. It is court Decisions like this that fuel these actions.



Irony...



Ironically, and what has to be particularly galling for the "quackbusters." is that Missouri was the home-base of one of the originators of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) - John Renner MD. Renner died on the operating room table while undergoing Cardiac Bypass Surgery - in Missouri . Renner was AGAINST chelation therapy, and was probably instrumental in causing this attack against Doctor McDonagh. The Missouri Supreme Court said, very pointedly:



"In contrast, according to the commission, cardiac bypass surgery -- an approved therapy for severe athlerosclerosis -- has an operative mortality rate of between two and 30 percent, depending on where you are in the United States, and mental impairment occurs in as many as 18 percent of cardiac bypass patients..."



The self-styled National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), the "quackbuster's" flagship, has sunk - it is financially insolvent, legally defunct, and its members owe the homeopathic world over $100,000 in legal fees it can't pay. The NCAHF president, Bobbie Baratz, has been ripped apart in the Courtroom, and his "testifying" income has been curtailed.



Things are not going well for the "quackbusters." They are not going to survive 2005.



We are heading for a health care "Nuremberg..." And, it's about time...



Stay tuned...

Tim Bolen - Consumer Advocate

This "Millions of Health Freedom Fighters - Newsletter" is about the battle between "Health and Medicine" on Planet Earth. Tim Bolen is an op/ed writer with extensive knowledge of the activities of a subversive organization calling itself the "quackbusters," and that organization's attempts to suppress, and discredit, any, and all health modalities that compete with the allopathic (MD) paradigm for consumer health dollars. The focus of the newsletter is on the ongoing activities, battles, politics, and the victories won by members of the "Health Freedom Movement" against the "quackbusters" It details "who the quackbusters are, what they are, where they are operating, when they appear, and how they operate - and how easy it is to beat them..."

For background information on the " Battle between Health and Medicine" go to: http://www.savedrclark.net/by_whom2.htm. A copy of THIS newsletter, and older ones, are viewable at the website http://www.quackpotwatch.org/default.htm.

For EVEN MORE interesting and related articles go to http://www.bolenreport.com.
post #59 of 132

Barrett also is against homeopathy and accupuncture!

Guys...he's against ANYTHING alternative--not just products like Juice Plus.

I found Pam Popper’s take on this. FYI, she runs The Wellness Forum (www.wellnessforum.com).

Dear Dr. Pam:

Who is Dr. Stephen Barrett and why does he hate alternative medicine so much?
Adrian H.

Dear Adrian:

Stephen Barrett is a non-practicing, non-licensed psychiatrist who maintains a web site that provides the public with his opinions about why alternative medicine and alternative practitioners are not effective. There is no real research to support his views, and he has lost several court cases recently based on his inability to support his positions. He does not disclose much about his own background or the source of the funding for his operations. In addition to his web site, he has appeared as an expert witness in several court cases against practitioners, and has filed several actions of his own on behalf of his organization, The National Council Against Health Fraud.

His stance is that almost everything but traditional western medicine is ineffective for the treatment of disease. These are a few of the people and practices that Dr. Barrett thinks are ineffective and/or incompetent:

Dr. Bernie Siegel, M.D.
Deepok Chopra
Chiropractic
Acupuncture
Homeopathy
Vitamins
Herbs
Although traditional medicine has used Barrett and his information in an attempt to discredit alternative practice and natural alternatives to pharmaceutical drugs, the tide seems to be turning against Dr. Barrett.

Barrett and his organization, the National Council Against Health Fraud, filed a lawsuit against King Bio Pharmaceuticals, makers of homeopathic remedies, alleging that their products were ineffective and unsafe. The judge in the case ruled against Barrett and these are excerpts from the judge's opinion dismissing it:

Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications to be an expert in this field
He is not a lawyer, but has taken several correspondence courses in law, which does not qualify him as a legal expert
There was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of the issues in this case
Little weight should be given to Barrett's testimony, as he is a long-time board member of the plaintiff and collects large fees for being a witness from the plaintiff. This presents a conflict of interest in that he has a direct financial interest in the outcome of this litigation - a positive outcome would be the basis for other suits of this type, which would require his services as an expert witness.
The case was appealed and King Bio prevailed again on appeal.
The Court of appeals found that Barrett "presented no evidence that King Bio's products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of or experience with King Bio's products and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility."
In another action, Stephen Barrett filed an action against Darlene Sherrell, a researcher who maintains a web site about the dangers of fluoridation in the water. Her information includes references to Barrett and his long-time stance that there is no danger resulting from fluoridating water. Her comments about him were less than kind.

Barrett filed a lawsuit against Sherrell for $100,000 in damages, stating that her statements about him were untrue. At the trial, Barrett could produce no studies demonstrating the safety of fluoridation and presented only himself and one other witness and no research to document his claim. The case was dismissed.

Century Press has filed a $10 million lawsuit against Barrett for filing frivolous lawsuits against some of the authors they publish.

A judge in Oakland California threw out a lawsuit filed by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy and Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal. The judge also ordered that Barrett et al pay Rosenthal's legal fees and expenses, stating that the plaintiffs had no evidence of wrongdoing and no evidence against Rosenthal when they filed their case. This decision was based on the California Strategic Lawsuits Against Participation statute, which seeks to prevent lawsuits that are "brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of free speech and petition for redress of grievances."

In response to recent losses in court, Barrett dropped his lawsuit against Joseph Mercola, an alternative doctor who Barrett rails against in his writings. Dr. Mercola had published information on his web site about Barrett, and Barrett alleged that this information was responsible for damage to his reputation.

Dr. Barrett's days as an "expert" are, in my opinion, numbered. People are starting to fight back using the court system and they are winning. This has cooled his propensity to get involved in some cases, and he has tempered his comments a great deal so as to avoid more lawsuits.


Stephen Barrett Gets What He Deserves
One of the biggest enemies of progress in medicine is Dr. Stephen Barrett, who operates numerous websites proclaiming that almost any form of treatment outside traditional medicine offered by medical doctors is quackery. Barrett has devoted his life to trying to discredit complementary and alternative medicine. His definition of alternative medicine is quite broad and includes many things considered mainstream by most, including chiropractic.

Barrett's reign of terror is coming to an end. The most recent chapter in the story is that on October 13, 2005, Pennsylvania Judge Brian Johnson threw out Barrett's defamation lawsuit against Dr. Ted Koren. Barrett's lawsuit sought damages against Koren and his company for statements he made in his newsletter about Barrett in 2001. Koren reported, among other things, that Barrett was de-licensed and in trouble due to a $10 million lawsuit. Koren stated that his comments were true.

Judge Johnson concluded after hearing the case that there was insufficient evidence to support Barrett's claim and directed the verdict before the case was given to the jury to decide.

For years, Barrett has held himself out as a medical expert on quackery and fraud in health care. In addition to appearing as an expert witness in numerous trials, he has been quoted in magazine articles and made several television appearances. He also has been busy filing lawsuits against those he deems to be quacks.

According to information in Koren's newsletter, Barrett has not been a licensed physician since the early 1990's. He was the subject of a $10 million lawsuit under the RICO statue that has since been withdrawn.

During the trial, Barrett admitted that he was not a Board Certified psychiatrist because he failed the certification exam. He also acknowledged that he had no legal training, even though he holds himself out as a legal expert.

Also at trial it was revealed that Barrett had filed similar defamation lawsuits against close to 40 people and did not win a single one at trial. He conceded that he had ties to the American Medical Association, the Federal trade Commission, and the FDA.

I do not often revel in other people's misfortunes, but this person has caused so much misfortune for others that it is hard not to be happy about what is happening to him now. What goes around comes around, and this guy is finally getting what he deserves.

For more information on the misfortunes of Dr. Stephen Barrett, visit the newsletter archives section of our website at www.wellnessforum.com. You'll find another article under "Editorials" in 2004.
post #60 of 132
Just so everyone is aware:

Pam Popper has close ties to Juice Plus+ and the Wellness Forum is largely lacking in content. Everything I click leads me to an opportunity to buy something.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Nutrition and Good Eating