Saturday, January 29, 2011

Mannatech and their fanatical following

Science icon from Nuvola icon theme for KDE 3.x.Image via WikipediaI have no idea whether their products do any good (and in my own opinion, they do not) but that's not relevant. I've been getting into a bit of discussion with a Mr. David Maddern, who, thus far, has demonstrated a willingness to defend Mannatech, even when all evidence is against him. Instead, he finds some other excuses to continue the defenses.

By my count, Mr. Maddern had won ZERO rounds in our two months of verbal sparring. He had barely edged a tie in 2 rounds, but lost 12 rounds. So that's a complete disaster.

The discussion can be found at

Here's a tally of each conversation, and sort of a "tally". I am KC, and he's DM

DM: Makes wild claims of 46% commission payout and such

KC: Calls for proof

DM: Throws out Mannatech website as "proof", names MTEX stock symbol

KC: Finds stock symbol completely unimpressive, massive losses

DM: Starts blabbing about "Mannatech is NOT sugar pill", cites some unproven explanation about cell science

DM: Claims Mannatech is losing money because it's donating vitamins for third world nutritional relief

KC: Calls DM's explanation "pseudo-science", explains "dip" in stock price occured LONG before nutritional relief announcement

DM: Replies with "you don't understand us / our science", blabs more about glyconutrients

Stock and general info round goes to KC, DM abandons the field

DM: Blabbers on about how glyconutrients improves immune system, and cites some statistics that claim society is getting sicker, "glyconutrients do not cure anything they allow the body to work properly"
 and completely misses the reference to "snake oil", cites bogus stat that 1 in 10 children now autistic

DM: When called out, admits he got his figure on autism was wrong, but refused to back down from statement "society is getting sicker"

Fake claim round is a loss for DM. 

DM: Blabs some more about increase incidence of cancer, claims glyconutrients helps body fight cancer

KC: Cites leading glycobiology experts (via Wikipedia) stating that Mannatech products cause mainly flatulence

DM: Dismisses glycobiology expert's complaint with insults, blames "big pharma" with agenda against Mannatech. "There has been a huge campaign by BigPharma to discredit Mannatech." 

KC: Calls DM out on the "blame a conspiracy" excuse

DM: Continues to blame conspiracy "Threatened by redundancy a few of the pharma heavies got together and the result has been small operations copying glyconutrient packaging testing mannatech patents", claims Mannatech patents are valid, therefore Mannatech is valid.

KC: Points out that DM considers leading glycobiologists quacks

DM: Continues to blame opponents to Mannatech as "employed by enemies" "My concern with those ‘experts’ is that drug companies may well be employing them so they could be partisan"

DM loses this round as he has no proof of "conspiracy" charge, then abandons argument

DM: Claims if you join Mannatech, you get rich by BUYING stuff. "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."

KC: Asks for explanation

DM: Backpedals, claims that you actually recruit people into autoship program

KC: Points out recruiting people into autoship program doesn't sound very legal

DM: Claims my description is "off", suggests I look up what's legal

KC: Did just that, cites Gerald Nehra, top MLM attorney in the US

DM: Claims the attorney is not an expert "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."

KC: Points out Nehra is the leading expert in the US on MLM legal aspects

DM: Claims the previously quoted definition was "out of context", but offers no other defense. Makes generic claim "Network Marketing is legal"

KC: Points out "implying Mannatech is legal because Network Marketing is legal" is a logical fallacy, cites all previous issues that DM retreated from

DM: Continues to claim we all need glyconutrients, ignores that he had cited logical fallacy

DM abandons the field again, resulting in another loss, that's 4th loss in a row

DM: Uses the "heresy defense", claims "truths" are all at first ridiculed, then accepted, implies Mannatech's research will be accepted.

KC: Calls DM out on using the "heresy" defense without any sort of proof, as it's merely OPINION

DM: Cites Dr. McDaniel's book as proof (former medical director of Mannatech), but claims it's science

TIE for this round (though it should be a loss for him for using a fake excuse) 4 loss and 1 tie

DM: Claims hackers prevented him from posting, claims glyconutrients are NOT in liquid form therefore previous critics are bull****ing

KC: Points out "Ambrotose" is available in powder form, which obviously dissolved in liquid then taken

DM:  Claims Ambrotose can be sprinkled in food or taken in capsule form, not relevant

KC: Points out sprinkling is irrelevant, points out Ambrotose is mainly made of various plant gums

DM: Claims that scientists are not "scientifically accurate" in describing ambrotose as a "liquid"

DM: Claims that our minds are "closed", and we should accept Mannatech is something new

KC: Points out the only one claiming so is Mannatech

DM: Claims Mannatech have hired people doing research in the area so there are no 'third-party" people to verify the people, but provided no evidence.

KC: Points out that DM had not proven any sort of benefit, and in fact is PROHIBITED from doing so

DM: Continues to IMPLY benefits to the body, supposed one ingredient acted on a few cells

KC:  Points out lab results does not actually mean benefits in human body

DM: Claims lab test have direct relation to human body

KC: Points out DM is not a glycobiologist and is no position to interpret the results

DM: Claims his background as "medical scientist" gives him enough background, plus he takes enough supplements that is doing him good.

TIE for this round (I may be too generous) 4 loss and 2 ties

KC: Cites TED video on nutritional industry as the "big placebo"

DM: Calls claim "sweeping generalization", claims "I see you use comedians to justify your position, where does this bloke spring from?"

KC: Points out TED video's Michael Specter is a noted investigative journalist

DM: Dismisess credentials as "reporters out to sensationalize a story", continues 'they don't understand us' excuse

KC: Points out DM used ad hominem attack TWICE

Loss for DM for this round, using dishonest debate tactics 5 losses and 2 ties

DM: Shifts gears to "you can't grasp the logic of glyconutrient is good for you" Which is polite way of saying "you don't understand us"

DM: Tries "proving a negative" excuse, "All you ppl who say they don’t work have no evidence that they don’t, its at best hung on an hypothesis."

KC: Calls DM out for using that lousy excuse as an argument

DM: Abandons position, cites some more personal anecdote as "evidence"

That's 6 losses and 2 ties

DM: Claims "leading economists says wellness revolution is on the way"

KC: Points out it's only ONE GUY, mr. Pilzer, that said that, and he meant that in a general sense

DM: Shifts gears, claim medical industry is killing people and bankrupting governments

That's SEVEN losses and two ties

KC: Catches DM at a shifting stance, points out a statement that appear to be from Kevin Trudeau's book

DM: Shifts gears again, claims hospitals are killing people, cites scary numbers

KC: Points out numbers are NOT put in context, death rate is 0.3% (or less)

KC: Points out DM is using an unsupported hypothesis

DM: Shifts gear back to pseudo-science about how glyconutrients are good for you

For abandoning the issue on medical industry, DM racks up ANOTHER loss. That's EIGHT losses and two ties

KC: Points out DM has recycled "you don't understand us" excuse

DM: Shifts gears, claims that nutritional supplements do NOT need full double-blind studies

DM: Claims Mannatech can conduct their own experiments that "prove" their own stuff works, sees no conflict of interest

KC: Points out data can be spun to fit a viewpoint, so third-party tests are the only valid validation

DM: Dismisses concern with no proof, claims if a doctor with lots of experience likes Mannatech, he will listen

KC: Points out that he will not listen to other glycobiology experts, sounds like a blindspot

DM: Claims to have no blindspot, but continues to blame conspiracy

KC: Points out blindspot toward a blindspot is still a blindspot

That's NINE losses and two ties.

DM: Claims he did not believe the glycobiologists wrote the critique of Mannatech

KC: Finds the actual paper "A Glyconutrient Sham" in Oxford Medical Journal

KC: Cites juicy tidbits from that paper

DM: Cites anecdotes of benefits as defense, claims Mannatech is doing valuable research

DM: Claims pubMed is incomplete, offers some anecdotes but no real proof, dismiss critic of Fisher Institute

KC: Digs up more dirt on Fisher Institute, called fake charity by Texas Attorney General

KC: Calls DM out on defending Fisher Institute... and Mannarelief

DM: Defends McDaniels, director of Fisher Institute

DM: Cites for information

KC: Points out has no external reference or even citations

Double loss for DM, having lost the defense of McDaniels and more. ELEVEN losses and two ties.

KC: Cites another medical professional, predicts DM will attack with "he knows nothing about glyconutrients"

DM: As predicted, attacks with "he doesn't know enough"

KC: Points out DM uses pseudo-science tactics to defend Mannatech

KC: Points out DM may have violated Mannatech policy, Nobel Laureates claim Mannatech used their names without permission,

KC: Digs up more dirt on McDaniels

DM: Retreats back to "pseudo-science" and technobabble, claims I stated all published papers are worthless

DM's lack of defense of McDaniels indicates he concedes ANOTHER round. That's TWELVE losses and two ties.

KC: Called DM's quote "out of context", I was referring to Mannatech's research as worthless (without outside confirmation)

DM: Continues to claim "leading glycobiologists" are wrong, but without proof

KC: Points out the only ones that say they're wrong would be Mannatech


And that is the current tally...  That there is NOT A SINGLE WIN for DM's side. He had lost 12 of 14 issues, with two barely edging a tie (and I was being generous in grading)

When he loses, he falls back to his pseudo-science and abandons the field.

Enhanced by Zemanta


Shazia Sahari said...

The Mannatech scam is real but from a different perspective. The company is a target. It is not scheming against you. It is not fraudulent.Stop listening to opinions and start looking at the science behind Mannatech scam.

Fat Bastardo said...

Glyconnutrients are BS! We need to jail QUACK MDs. Doctor Ben Carson's Criminal Past and Debate Lies Exposed CLICK HERE

Ben Carson's Mannatech quackery is deadly.