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 http://behindmlm.com/companies/mannatech/sugarmums-com-au-whos-behind-the-business/
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 GlycoNutrientReference.com for information
KC: Points out GlycoNutrientreference.com 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
TIE THUS FAR
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.