Miscellaneous SCAMs...and how to avoid them!

 # 1 Question 1: Who is this “Dr. Earl Mindell?” There are many links to this man. He does have a Ph.D. which means he can use the term “doctor.” However, that degree was conferred by an, at the time, unaccredited institution.He had previously earned a Master Herbalist Degree from Dominion Herbal College.This information is found in a search at those Wikipedia links. Additional reading there is very interesting, especially the parts about his interview on a Canadian TV show and his reactions to challenges of his credentials. (return to # 1 Red Flag above)

 # 2 Question 2: Where does this ‘doctor’ get his data supporting his claim that any prescription drugs shorten ones lifespan by “15 — 20 — 25 years?” Logically, this kind of claim is impossible to prove since it would require two sets of identical people experiencing exactly the same conditions and lives except for the prescription drugs they would take. And they would both need to be studied until both had died! I don’ think there has ever been any kind of study that detailed or long. Such a claim is shear nonsense. A simple citation would be much appreciated, “‘Dr.’ Mindell”. (return to # 2 Red Flag above)

 # 3 Let me get this straight, “‘Dr.’ Mindell” wants us to trust him because he is a ‘doctor’. Then he tells us that “nine times out of ten the last... person to turn to... IS YOUR VERY OWN DOCTOR!” I can only assume he is referring to two different kinds of doctor, which prompted my first question.

Question 3: How does he support his claim that his book is “considered by many to be the definitive guide to natural supplements”? He mentions selling 11 million copies, but that has very little to do with proving he is any kind of expert about anything. He then jumps to the conclusion that being an expert at natural supplements gives him knowledge of what prescription drugs can and can’t do. He does have a BS in Pharmacy, so he certainly should have prescription drug knowledge, I certainly hope so. But he, once again, asks the reader to assume that knowledge in one field confers knowledge in another without offering any justification or supporting evidence. (return to # 3 Red Flag above)

 # 4 Question 4: He mentions Congressional investigations without including any dates or identities of the Congressmen involved. While there are records of all those investigations, I think he is assuming that we don’t have the time to search for that information. I think he also assumes we won’t do any searching on the web which will easily turn up numerous hits connecting him with SCAMs and quackery. The “good doctor” is in business to sell his products. I find it impossible to understand how he can not see a conflict of interest in his sending these letters while selling his products. Again, perhaps it is because even he doesn’t consider himself a medical doctor. At best, he is simply an ‘herbal’ pharmacist. (return to # 4 Red Flag above)

 # 5 Is is important to note that the chemical and its effects were first reported and described in 1957 by Pro. Fredrick L. Crane and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Enzyme Institute. Why Harvard is mentioned instead of the University of Wisconsin is not stated. The point is, this is hardly a ‘breakthrough.’ Nor are its uses and effects unknown to any drug company. It is simply one of numerous enzymes or chemicals found in most living mammals. (return to # 5 Red Flag above)

 # 6 I have no idea what is meant by “The Nobel Prize The Medal Of Science By In Medicine and The President Of The U.S.” I re-read his letter several times, but I could not make sense of this collection of words. Certainly, there is a ‘Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine’. Here is a link to the Nobel Laureates who have received this prize:Nobelprize.org I could find no record of any U.S. President making any award to anyone for any kind of ‘medical breakthrough’.

There was a National Medal of Science in Chemistry awarded to Peter D. Mitchell, Ph. D. in 1990 by President Bush. There is a listing for Peter Mitchell, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1978 for his work that included “the understanding of biological energy transfer” which is where ubiquinone is used by animals. (return to # 6 Red Flag above)

 # 7 It is easy to find sites that claim that the bodies production of the vitamin-like ubiquinone starts to drop at around the age of 20. Many people think it starts around 45. Some dictionaries refer to it as between the ages of 45 and 65. Yet, the author says that 75 is when ‘middle age’ starts! That’a a very large difference and demands some explanation. Just don’t expect to find it in this letter.

There are sites that claim that their formulation of any chemical is better than any other. Much of this is due to the fact that there are still no verifiable, scientific studies proving that additional, specific dosages of ubiquinone provide any positive effects on any of the symptoms of aging mentioned above. (return to # 7 Red Flag above)

 # 8 Don’t forget to call within 30 days! After all, this chemical has only been known for 1957! It’s a “breakthrough drug,” remember? 55+ years and just 30 days to respond! The reasoning for this time-table is as strange as the behavior of this author! (return to # 8 Red Flag above)

 # 9 Even in this statement, the author found it impossible not to exaggerate and encourage us to buy his product(s). I suppose by saying that they are models is the authors way of saying they are “fake?” I wonder why he can’t simply say this without the fine print? I am happy to see that he tells us that the testimonials were bought (truthful or not, we’ll never know) and they are not even typical. However, I can see no reason to put that information in fine print... unless it is an attempt to keep us from reading it. However, I read absolutely nothing in his letter that indicates any concern for truth or even an honest offering of information backed up by facts or scientific research. With that attitude in mind, I urge the reader of his letter to view it as nothing more than a sales pitch; exactly the same thing he shames pharmaceutical representatives of doing. I suggest the buyer beware of any promises or claims made!

Remember, ubiquinone has never been tested for purity, safety or effectiveness. You are completely on your own if you take this chemical. You have absolutely no information on how much, if any(!), of the chemical you are actually buying or ingesting. Nor do you have any inkling of how it was made or even where! Since it’s never been proven to be a useful drug, it is totally unregulated by any group tasked with monitoring its healthiness; just as was done with tobacco for decades. Do you want to be a part of the unscientific “tests” being carried out by users of this chemical? I certainly don’t. Your ideas about health safety may be different than mine, however. I think the best advice I can give is to quote from this Drugs.com site:

“Ubiquinone has not been approved by the FDA to treat any disease, and it should not be substituted for prescription medications.

“Ubiquinone has not been evaluated by the FDA for safety, effectiveness, or purity. All potential risks and/or advantages of this product may not be known. Additionally, there are no regulated manufacturing standards in place for these compounds. Some marketed herbal supplements have been found to be contaminated with toxic metals or other drugs.”Drugs.com site

What I do know is that the author of this letter has been involved inmiss-representingvarious ‘health additives’ in the past. He has been challenged as far back as 2 007 intelevised interviews.

As for the book that the author touts, I’ll simply let you read the information about it and some of the 50+ other books he has written at thisQuackWatchsite. Enjoy the “Irreverent Look at the Vitamin Bible and Its Author (Earl Mindell).”

“A Wondrous New Breakthrough Researched At Harvard Medical School” First, exactly what is this ‘wondrous breakthrough?’ Later in the letter, it is called CoQ10 or Ubiquinone. While you will find evidence of studies at Harvard of this naturally occurring chemical, it is never described as ‘wondrous’ or even a ‘breakthrough.’ It is throughly described and studied and its benefits listed.

Here are a group of links that describe what CoQ10/Ubiquinone is and how it works.

• Science Direct
• Wikipedia
• National Cancer Institute (NCI) Summary
• Explanations of NCI Summary Reports
• Harvard Genorator Scores-ubiquinone
• everyday health.com
• everyday health.com

The most important facts I saw in these studies and reports is that there are no scientific studies showing any significant effectiveness of CoQ10/Ubiquinone that would suggest buying the chemical. Common, healthy eating will supply the chemical which is normally produced in our bodies, anyway. I think it is also significant that the use of CoQ10/Ubiquinone has not been approved by the Federal Drug Administration as mentioned in the last two links above. Some will claim that there is a conspiracy against ‘natural drugs’ by the Government and/or the ‘Drug Industry!’ I would simply remind readers that when an approved drug is found to cause problems, we can rely on the FDA to insure appropriate and timely actions are taken to protect our population. The same cannot be said for ‘natural drugs’ which have no such oversight or protections. You can trust the corporations that sell these chemicals or an unbiased, non-profit motivated government agency... I know who I’d trust. (return to # 9 Red Flag above)