What follows is information Iâve found out after I started looking into USANA at a friendâs request. I saved it to give to them and was never planning on posting it until someone in one of the message boards said that showing USANAs products for what they really are is the best way to protect people from signing up with this lying company. Most of this I combed from message boards but Iâve double checked statements and found them to be true. This is Version 1.1 because I might be making updates as I find out new things. I encourage everyone to copy and paste this on any message board where people are trying to promote USANA with either false or illogical claims addressed in this document.
USANA - Admits theyâre not Certified by the FDA for Pharmaceutical GMPs
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/896
264/000110465907036486/a07-10873_110q.htm
âAlthough the FDA has not historically imposed GMP standards specific to the dietary supplement industry, we have manufactured our dietary supplement products, on a voluntary basis, in a manner we believe is in accordance with the standards of the FDAâs pharmaceutical model GMPâs. When the new GMP regulation specific to dietary supplements is adopted, we may be required to expend additional capital and resources on manufacturing controls in the future in order to comply with the law.â â USANA
------------------------------------------
----------
So NO ONE is checking to see if USANA manufactures to Pharmaceutical GMPs and weâre supposed to take their word for it. Here are some further examples of how trust worthy USANA is
- Myron Wentz never informed shareholders that he renounced his US Citizenship and is instead a citizen of St.Kitts.
- The CFO Gill Fuller claimed to be an active CPA when his licence had lapsed back in 1986 and it is ILLEGAL to wrongfully claim to be an active CPA within the State of Utah.
- VP of Research and Development Timothy Wood said he had a Ph.D. in Biology when itâs really in Forestry.
- Denis Waitley lied and claimed to have a Masters from The Naval Postgraduate School despite having never even attended the school. He also calls himself Dr. Denis Waitly despite the fact his âPh.D.â is from the UNACREDITED âLa Jolla Universityâ and seems to have âmisplacedâ his thesis despite the fact heâs referenced it several times in his writings. In addition, USANA is unable to provide any evidence that he ever attended âLa Jolla University.â Not that it would really matter considering itâs a diploma mill anyway.
- Ladd McNamara, a USANA sales associate and promotional speaker, never mentioned the fact he had to renounce his licence to practice medicine in Georgia in order to avoid being prosecuted and that he lost his license in Ohio for failing to inform them of this disciplinary action against him. He has never been licensed in California where he currently lives and continues to refer to himself as a doctor. He has made the false claim of being doctor at USANA functions and in advertisements as well.
Is this a company you want to take the word of?
USANA and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)
http://www.usana.com/dotCom/company/manufa
cturing/index
âIn several countries around the world, supplements are more highly regulated than in the United States. In Australia, for example, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which regulates dietary supplements, mandates that manufacturers follow a set of GMP identical to pharmaceutical GMP in the United States. As an Australian supplier, USANA is regularly inspected and audited by the TGA to ensure that we meet their GMP standards. Most recently, USANA was audited in June 2006 by the TGA and passed with ease.â â USANA
------------------------------------------
----------
USANA wants us to believe that they manufacture to Pharmaceutical GMPs because the TGA investigates them regularly and they want us to believe THEIR word when they say that the TGA is more highly regulated than the FDAâs regulation of Pharmaceutical GMPs. Following USANAs line means that ANY product thatâs listed with the TGA can also be said to be up to the FDAâs Pharmaceutical GMPs. Whatâs an example of another Supplement that rivals USANA in this right?
Centrum. Thatâs right, Centrum. You canât get more âoff the shelfâ than that.
https://www.tgasime.health.gov.au/SIME/ART
G/ARTGPublicWeb.nsf/MEDpublic?SearchView&a
mp;Query=centrum&start=1&searchOrd
er=4&searchMax=1000&searchWV=0&
;searchFuzzy=0
Other MLM companies that have been cleared by the TGA include
Melaleuca
https://www.tgasime.health.gov.au/SIME/ART
G/ARTGPublicWeb.nsf/MEDpublic?SearchView&a
mp;Query=melaleuca&start=1&searchO
rder=4&searchMax=1000&searchWV=0&a
mp;searchFuzzy=0
Nu Skin
https://www.tgasime.health.gov.au/SIME/ART
G/ARTGPublicWeb.nsf/MEDpublic?SearchView&a
mp;Query=nu%20skin&start=1&searchO
rder=4&searchMax=1000&searchWV=0&a
mp;searchFuzzy=0
Herbalife
https://www.tgasime.health.gov.au/SIME/ART
G/ARTGPublicWeb.nsf/MEDpublic?SearchView&a
mp;Query=herbalife&start=1&searchO
rder=4&searchMax=1000&searchWV=0&a
mp;searchFuzzy=0
Mannatech
https://www.tgasime.health.gov.au/SIME/ART
G/ARTGPublicWeb.nsf/MEDpublic?SearchView&a
mp;Query=mannatech&start=1&searchO
rder=4&searchMax=1000&searchWV=0&a
mp;searchFuzzy=0
University of Alberta â USANAs Label Contains âPseudo-Scienceâ
http://www.ualberta.ca/~csps/JPPS9(1)/Loeb
enberg.R/tablets.htm
âUsana Health Science Inc.
Salt Lake City, UT Essentials Multi Mineral 84
Yes
9961 + Information not available Laboratory tested for guaranteed quality
Meets specifications for potency, uniformity, and disintegration, as appropriate
âOne product claimed that it âmeets specifications for potency, uniformity and disintegration as appropriate.â However no specifications of âappropriateâ were given.â
CONCLUSIONS
This study showed that there are products sold on the Canadian market which use statements on their label which are difficult to define. However, such terms and statements seem to be used to add pseudo-scientific and unjustified value to the product; such statements should be avoided. Only recognized test methods should be used on the labels. Dosage form and active ingredients need to be matched with their intended therapeutic use to ensure that the active is released at it site of absorption. Todayâs customers cannot assume that the product they buy will have an acceptable quality with regard to the disintegration behaviour.â
------------------------------------------
----------
The little plus sign up there means USANA did pass the test and fully disintegrated. Whoopee! Want the name of a few other companies and products that that passed?
- Centrum
- Safeway ( A grocery chain)
- Loblaws (Another grocery chain)
- Jamieson
- Natural Factors
- Bayer
You can get all of these products at much lower prices than anything from USANA. Melaleuca also passed this test as well.
USANA is NOT Certified by the USP
http://www.usp.org/USPVerified/dietarySupp
lements/supplements.html
------------------------------------------
----------
On USANAs labels youâll notice it says âMeets USP guidelines for potency, uniformity, and disintegration.â However if you go to the link above youâll notice their name is not included in the list of USP Verified Dietary Supplements. Why? Because the USP DOES NOT certify USANA! They used phrasing to mislead consumers into believing that the USP is backing USANA when itâs not.
USANA IS Certified by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF)
http://www.nsf.org/Certified/consumer/list
ings_results.asp?KeyWords=&ProgramCode
=DIETSUPP&CompanyName=&ProductName
=&SearchType=QUICK&prog_add=N&
prod_cnt=338&comp_cnt=21&ShowCompa
ny=Y
------------------------------------------
----------
About the only one that seems to certify USANA seems to be the National Sanitation Foundation. The National Sanitation Foundation has certified USANA for DIETARY SUPPLEMENT GMPs, NOT PHARMACEUTICAL GMPS. If you go through the NSFâs list youâll see that Mannatech and K-Mart are also listed.
USANA Listed in the PDR
âUSANAâs products are listed in the prestigious PDRâ - USANA
http://healthandfreedom.tripod.com/_freedo
m_fast_facts.pdf
------------------------------------------
----------
For USANA âprestigiousâ must mean they paid a great deal because thatâs all they had to do to have their product listed in the PDR. Below is a quote from Wikipedia discussing the controversies surrounding the PDR.
âOriginally distributed as a promotional item, the PDR has come under recent scrutiny with the lack of reporting of updated and accurate drug dosages along with adverse drug effects. Often dosage information can be taken from phase 1 trial information where clinical drug information is incomplete, resulting in higher PDR-recommended dosages than therapeutically effective dosages for many medications. And since MOST OF THE INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM THE DRUG DATA SHEETS GENERATED BY THE DRUG MANUFACTURERES, it is more likely to not include drug studies reporting the worst side-effect and adverse effect data.[1] This is opposed to evidence-based medicine or clinical reviewed material which examines all such data but is not contained within the PDR.
The PDR has also been criticized for its being paid for by the various pharmaceutical manufacturers that present medications within its pages. This criticism stems from the lack of special interest disclosure and the potential for guiding medical recommendations apart from evidence-based medicine. THE LACK OF MEDICAL EDITORIAL CAPACITY WITHIN THE PDR WHICH IS STANDARD IN THE REVIEW OF ALL SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE BY INFORMED SCIENTIFIC PEERS HAS ALSO BEEN CRITICIZED.
While proponents may argue that the controversies with the PDR may seem insignificant, critics site that in fact, most physicians and pharmacists rely on it in a bound, online or PDA version for drug dosaging and the lack of transparency in its formation most certainly leads to adverse patient outcomes.â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians%2
7_Desk_Reference
The PDR publishes what they are told to publish by the companies that pay them to include their products in the PDR. There are several PDRs including one for âNon-prescription Drugs, Dietary Supplements and Herbs.â Why isnât USANA listed in that PDR? Because they choose to have their information listed in the standard Pharmaceutical PDR. A company paying their fee to the PDR has the right to decide in which edition the information is published. USANA no doubt choose the Pharmaceutical one to give their product more âprestigeâ in an attempt to mislead people into believing that their product conforms to higher standards of quality but that is simply not the case. USANA was even warned about using the PDRs logo etc in their advertisements which is why USANA adjusted how they referred to the PDR in their promotional material. They even received a warning from the PDA.
USANA is Number 1 in the Comparative Guide for Nutritional Supplements
âUSANA flagship Essentials and HealthPak 100 nutritional supplements rate 'best of the best' out of 1,600 products evaluated in Canada and United States.â â USANA
http://www.usana.com/dotCom/news/guide.jsp
------------------------------------------
----------
This is a quote from USANAs web-site where they are referring to their rating in the Comparative Guide of Nutritional Supplements. In this guide there were a total of 4 products given the 5-Star Gold Standard.
USANA Essentials â Available only through USANA distributors.
Creating Wellness Alliance â Available through Chiropractors.
Douglas Laboratories â Available through Healthcare Providers.
TrueStar Health â Available through Health and Fitness Centres.
Surprisingly NONE of these products are in direct competition with one another since theyâre sold through different avenues. Of most interest to us is the relationship between Nutrisearchâs Comparative Guide and USANA. Who are the editors that contributed to the Comparative Guide? You can find out right here -
http://nutrisearch.ca/
Do your research on these people and youâll find out the following.
⢠Lyle MacWilliams was a member of USANAs medical advisory board. Howâs that for a 3rd party investigation? Donât worry it gets worse.
⢠Dr.Colgane also worked as an advisory board member for USANA in the past and was a distributor for them as well. He is not a 3rd party source.
⢠Dr. Ray Strand is an advisory board member at USANA as well as having a wife who is a high ranking distributor.
o Dr. Ray Strand is on USANAâs advisory committee
http://www.usana.com/dotCom/company/ag/mab
o His wife (Elizabeth Strand) has earned at least $1 million in commissions
http://www.usana2day.com/media/File/Prospe
cting%20page/Tools/CA/USANABusiness/CA%20H
&F%20Newspaper.pdf
o You can see them pictured together in this report on page 12.
http://xobm.usana.com/forms/anz_hf_newspap
er.pdf
Dr.Strand personally profits from USANA and is not a credible 3rd party source by ANY means. If you are one of Dr.Strands patience and he recommended USANA to you, Iâd consider a lawsuit.
⢠Dr Robert Atkins we all know from the Atkins diet.
⢠Dr. Nicholas Perricone who is known for making outlandish claims backed by very little scientific research in order to sell books and products. It's not uncommon for his claims to be based on his own research which have not been published in medical journals and he supplies very little information about the nature of this research.
⢠Dr. Michael Murray is an N.D. (or Natural Doctor) not to be confused with an M.D. (or Medical Doctor). Not a big deal, but he really shouldn't use the title Dr in a situation where the average person would reasonably expect them to be a physician.
⢠Dr. Julian Whitaker claims to be board certified specialist in anti-aging medicine but he has never been certified in any specialty acknowledged by any sort of official board. He has no specialties recognized by either the American Board of Medical Specialties or the American Medical Association.
⢠Earl Mindell is referred to as âDr. Ear Mindellâ despite he fact he has a Ph.D. not an M.D. and that Ph.D. isnât worth the paper itâs printed on because itâs from Pacific Western University a known diploma mill. It is a unaccredited âdistance-learning institutionâ where you give them money and they mail you your degree. Mindell made an ass of himself in the following investigative report of Goji Juice
http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2007/01/goji
.html
⢠Phyillis Balch has her CNC which is a certification she received from the American Association of Nutritional Consultants. You too can receive this certification if you pay $150 and pass an open book exam. This organization has previously given memberships to a DEAD cat once owned by Ben Goldacre and a dead English sheepdog owned by Rosemary Stanton.
⢠Richard Passwater is referred to as âDr.Richard Passwaterâ despite the fact, surprise surprise, - HE ISNâT EVEN A DOCTOR. He's not even a PhD. He has his "degree" from a fake institution called Bernadean University which has NEVER had degree granting status.
What does Nutrisearch gain by publishing The Comparative Guide for Nutritional Supplements when itâs obviously so biased that no one in their right mind would trust it as a source for information? Money. USANA distributors buy up this book like crazy to show to everyone they can because it backs up their unsubstantiated claims that USANA is a top of the line product. Iâd be willing to bet itâs available in the USANA Shop at their web-site. Of course, I canât tell for sure because you have to be a USANA distributor to see what goes on in there.
Adding further insult to injury the Comparative Guide is non-Peer Reviewed so the above âexpertsâ are the only ones who had any say in what was written. No one checked the work meaning the decision for what product topped the list was predominantly decided by those who are either biased, uneducated or both. Further to the point is the fact that the Comparative Guide relied exclusively on the product labels and NO analytical chemistry was done to determine the levels of vitamins indicated on products labels are actually in the pills or capsules (http://www.shotwellpr.com/pdf/HPCMultiple
Vitimins0904.pdf)
Court Findings
"The judge cited two examples where Usana failed to refute Minkow's claims that its products were overpriced because they were not of better quality than other lower-priced brands. Usana's arguments were "hypertechnical statements representing differing interpretation of data,"
â Salt Lake Tribune Article
------------------------------------------
----------
If USANA really had such a great product they would have been able to prove it in Court. Instead they had almost all of their claims against Minkow tossed out. What about the remaining one?
------------------------------------------
----------
âBut Usana also was facing an uncertain outcome with the Minkow litigation. In March, U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell tossed out four Usana claims against him. That left only the company's charge that Minkow was part of a larger effort to profit from a drop in the company's stock price. But court documents showed that Usana NEVER sued others who supposedly were part of the effort and it NEVER asked for an injunction, its only avenue for relief in the case.â
- Trading Markets.com
------------------------------------------
----------
They did NOTHING. Why? Iâd say itâs because they had nothing. If they moved forward Iâm certain they would have lost this claim as well. The deals of the settlement are mostly confidential (between USANA and Minkow) but Minkow agreed to have nothing to do with USANA from now on so USANA got what they wanted and Iâm certain Minkow got what he wanted $$$. Why else would USANA not take the opportunity to prove themselves in court? Most USANA defenders were shouting that Minkow was only in it for the money when this story began and to me this proves them right because USANA BOUGHT him off. What other explanation is there? They decided to let him go? Not bloody likely. Seems like Minkow was right about his claims against USANA but it also seems that to him being paid is more important than being right.