Protandim

I choose not to question the efficacy of anything sold, repeatedly, by MLM marketing.

The reasons for this are simple;

The whole point of pyramid schemes (which includes MLM) is to make money for those at the top, at the expense of those on lower levels, which includes end customers.

What is sold is completely irrelevant - if the idea was to make money selling something then different marketing techniques would be employed, the idea is to make money out of the distribution chain, not out of the 'product'.

As for the ingredients - surely everyone with ME has tried all of them, there's nothing that isn't easily available in there.

I can't see a particular ratio of various things making any difference in this case.

So it's just another overpriced supplement, with somewhat dubious 'evidence', with the added problem of its marketing.

milk thistle, causes me issues with a few days,
as far as I know ashwagandha is sort of restricted in some countries because of its side effect profile (although it had no noticeable effect on me),
green tea extract is also questionable re side effects.

The mixture is probably not benign in all cases.

 

Beware if they start offering "money back offers" for people to try it for a period of time.

That's what happened when "Forever Living" began to target ME groups in the 1990s with their aloe vera juice claims. It was the usual thing. Someone who claimed to have had ME starting joining groups. They offered money back to anyone who wanted to try it. What could possibly go wrong?

PWME who did buy it and found that they got worse had the money back claim refused because they didn't complete a course of it. I wasn't aware of anyone who recovered or got their money back in the end.

 

According to Wikipedia:

I can buy those herbs individually, they are all very accessible and cheap, so I see no reason why you would want to buy this expensive product even under the hypothetical that it was somehow proven to work.

 

I'm pretty sure there are rules around advertising that say you are not allowed to claim your product treats or cures anything. But the rules are so weak that a sentence like this makes it all legal:

 

Personal experience with the individual components would confirm this.

I've never tried milk thistle. Ashwagandha, green tea and turmeric had zero effect for me, neither positive nor negative.

Bacopa caused nausea, cramps and what WebMD calls

I don't know how dangerous that is but it sure is unpleasant. My bottle of bacopa quickly went into the bin.

 

Googled pyramid schemes
https://comcom.govt.nz/consumers/dealing-with-typical-situations/pyramid-schemes
But not sure if this counts as a ‘gimmick’ product - see the link. Maybe. I’ll leave that to someone else with more spoons.

There is of course consumer protection law (https://www.consumerprotection.govt...umer-issues/misleading-prices-or-advertising/) but I imagine it’s sadly covered by @Ravn pointing out the disingenuous disclaimer. If you’re clued up enough to complain, you’re clued up enough not to buy in the first place so you won’t be able to complain.

There’s advertising standards authority complaints but that’s industry self regulation and is really just going to mean they tidy up their language to cover their butts. Good for serious breaches only.

 

Oh, and there’s medsafe:
https://medsafe.govt.nz/regulatory/DietarySupplements/Regulation.asp
Which says it has to be a substitute for a food you might consume as part of your diet, not impinge on biosecurity (can’t be a new plant or animal or other organism to the country and adequate measures taken for organisms which might impact our primary industries -farming), contain any medicines (specifically including folic acid) nor controlled drugs, nor make any health claims.

This is the guideline for therapeutic substances: https://medsafe.govt.nz/regulatory/Guideline/GRTPNZ/manufacture-of-medicines.pdf
Which appears to accept a list of overseas authorities certifications.

Stopping now as likely to be getting OT.

 

I suspect it all comes down to precise wording and legal interpretation of it.

My magnesium supplement (which I take for other reasons, not ME) states: "helps to relax muscles and to maintain an already normal blood flow. It can also support a steady heart rhythm and a healthy immune system, as well as keeping bones strong".

Then there's the standard "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease".

To me the first quote suggests the supplement can prevent, alleviate, treat, or compensate for a defect, and that it is capable of and intended to influence or modify a physiological process. But I suspect weasel phrasing like "supports", "helps", and "already normal" are legally interpreted differently, especially together with the second quote.