Just because it's on a famous website doesn't mean the advice is any good

I like my water with a little flavor, so between lemonade mixes, Crystal Light, and so on, I am looking into the world of water enhancers. You've seen those in supermarkets... Either in a box of 6-10 little sachets or in a little bottle that you squeeze a squirt or two into your bottled water or such.

Obviously, people have opinions on what's good or bad, but are there any studies or scientific discussions on what's good and what's not? I decided to do some research. What I read disappointed me, as a lot of the websites, even big name ones like eatthis.com, the companion site to the "eat this, not that" series of books, are prone to "food babe" type hysteria and bad advice.

(If you forgot who "Food Babe" was, here's a reminder.)

Anyway, back to the rant. Here's the part of the article that bothers me.

"The second ingredient in these little bottles is propylene glycol, a preservative, thickening agent, and stabilizer, also used as antifreeze to de-ice airplanes, as a plasticizer to make polyester resins, and found in electronic cigarettes."

There is little NOTHING here that explains what's good or bad about MiO. Yes, it listed a lot of alternate uses for propylene glycol, but again, NOTHING that explains why having this is "bad". Instead, we're left with insinuations as the item was linked to various "bad" things like "anti-freeze", "electronic cigarettes", "preservative", and so on.

And I'm not kidding, that was ALL the author wrote on MIO.

Clearly, the author has nothing bad to SAY about MiO, but the author wanted us to dislike MiO, so she chose to link MiO with a bunch of "bad words" but are still factual.

That is propaganda and manipulation.

This becomes obvious when you read the part about one of the items she DOES recommend...

IPro Network (IPN) and the MLM Game of Telephone: garble up the message to sound better

Recently I came across a comment about IPro Network on BehindMLM.

First, what is iPro Network? Some generic discount network based on some generic altcoin they are billing as some fantastic e-commerce opportunity, you should buy into the currency despite there's no proof that it was widely adopted (since there are tons of altcoins out there). It's so fantastic, there is absolutely NO TRACE of the CEO on the internet (other than on their own website), who wears a clearly wrong size shirt (he can't even button his collar), despite claiming "15 years experience".

Anyway, here's the comment about why is the review so hard on a "legitimate" opportunity.

"Bill Antonio": "Oz I appreciate you trying to protect marketers from scams but why is it that you seem to criticise every business opportunity and preventing people from making money online from legit companies. IPN has been endorsed by Scott Warren a most sought after MLM Lawyer as IPN has met all the compliance guidelines and has also being endorsed by well-known entrepreneur Kevin Harrington from Shark Tank who is highly respected in the business world.They also have sought after motivational speaker Jay Abraham who is in the same league as Anthony Robbins. These people will never be involved in any scams.

Okay, there are a couple things to note:

1) Did Scott Warren, an MLM lawyer, "endorse" IPro Network?

2) Did Kevin Harrington (Shark Tank) endorse IPro Network?

3) Does Jay Abraham work for IPro Network?

Not surprisingly, the answer is "no proof of such" in each and every case.

This is like the game of telephone, where somehow message was distorted into whatever the promoter wanted to say, instead of the REAL content.

So what is the truth? Let MLMSkeptic lead you to some discovery.

Scam Psychology: "You have to try it to understand it" fallacy

One of the most popular fallacies trotted out by scammers and scammed sheeple is "you have to try it to understand it".  It has a cousin known as "you're not in it (so shut up)" argument.

Basically, the claim that any criticism levelled at the scheme is premature because the critics have not tried the scheme. The implication is once the critic have tried the scheme s/he will change his/her mind. It basically takes this form

A: Acme XYZ is a scam because of ____, _____, and _____.  

B: But you don't know Acme XYZ. How could you when you're not a member? Join us. 

The reply sounds very sensical, until you realize one thing: It never addressed your point: "Acme XYZ is a scam". It is completely irrelevant. It is a red herring. It neither disproves your premise, nor does it prove a counter premise.

The argument is non-sensical, and here's a very appropriate reply quip for such idiocy:

"So you have to eat shit to know not to eat it, huh?"

(Thanks to justicealwayslate on Facebook)

There are plenty of other quips, like "oh, so cops have to be criminals first to arrest criminals, huh?"  or "do I have to shoot myself to know it's a bad idea?" or "Do morticians have to die to be a mortician?" But you get the idea. It's ridiculous.

Scam Psychology: Idiot's Guide to Idiocy... and how to avoid it

It is very often in scam psychology that the victim refused to accept that they have been victimized, and they often square off against the critics. However, here are some questions they should be asking themselves... Are they *really* arguing best evidence... or merely best "intentions"?

1. What exactly are you arguing for? 

Often, proponents of a scheme have very different arguments. The ones I've seen are:

(Scheme name) is [mostly] legal!
(Scheme name) pays me [and that's good enough for me, never mind legal!]
Go pick on some [bigger evil] and leave (Scheme name) alone!

Some folks even managed to do all three at once.

But think about it, only the first item is a real "defense" of the scheme. The other two are tacit admissions that the scheme may indeed be shady, if not outright illegal.


2. Are you arguing or merely denying? 

There's a big difference between arguing, and denying.

Arguing means both sides present their best argument, and analyzes the other side's argument for flaws.

Denying simply means you insist that the other side is wrong, wrong, and wrong, without analysis.

Don't see the difference? Watch this comedy skit "Argument Clinic" courtesy of Monty Python:

3. Does your argument SOUND weak? 

A lot of scheme defenders, when trying to defend certain potentially illegal parts of the scheme, end up sounding like a whiny cat, because their argument end up as...

"But you don't *have* to do that... It's optional."

For example:

"But you don't have to recruit more sellers (It's just that you make more money if people you recruited also recruit more sellers)"

"But you don't have to buy stuff every month (If the people you recruited buy enough so your "group volume" qualifies you for commission)"

Now repeat that in a whiny kid's voice, and you'll see how weak that argument was.

It's also a bogus argument, because it's tacit admission that the scheme has at least one potentially illegal / amoral component. It's roughly equivalent to "I smoked (pot) but I didn't inhale".  That's a VERY weak argument.


4. Are you arguing from "might" or "meek"? 

Are you using "might" or "meek" for your arguments? Or just whatever that suits your argument? Are they even relevant?

Many promoters often invoke bandwagon fallacy (i.e. X people joined, Y amount of money spent, Z celebrities endorsed, etc.) That's the "might".

Many promoters adopt the "meek" attitude when they whine about government persecution, conspiracy of rich, and so on and so forth.

They are NOT relevant! Those are WEAK arguments! Find better ones!

What do you repost? Think about it a little...

Specifically... did you fact check it first?

A: "Did you fact check this before reposting it?"
B: "I don't need to. It agrees with my preconceived views and biases so it must be true!"
from thelogicofscience.com

Anti-Scam: Rough Guide to Spotting Shady Opportunities, Part 2 of 3

This guide is an adaptation of "A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science" by "Compound Interest", converted for spotting "shady opportunities". For length reasons, this is presented in 3 parts. This is part 2 of 3.

A Rough Guide To Spotting Shady Opportunities  (part 2 of 3)

Shady Opportunities are out there, waiting to take your money on promises of fabulous income... if you hand over your money first. There are twelve signs. Obviously a shady opportunity may not have all the signs, but the more signs you spot, the more shady the opportunity is.

5) Speculative Language

Speculations are not facts, so if the statement contains "weasel words" like "may", "could", "might", and so on, then it's likely to be speculation, rather than conclusion.

You can often spot this when a "lotions and potions" company presents some study that "sort of" proves their product works. But this can also apply to income claims, which is usually frowned upon.

For example, a certain MLM nutritional supplement company's entire product line is based on this speculation published in "Medical Hypotheses (2002)"

...Based on a review of the literature we propose the hypothesis that in situ mobilization of stem cells from the bone marrow and their migration to various tissues is a normal physiological process of regeneration and repair and that therapeutic benefits can be generated with less invasive regimens than the removal and re-injection of stem cells, through the stimulation of normal stem cell migration. We further propose that effort should be made to identify natural compounds characterized by their ability to augment this normal process of mobilization and re-colonization of bone marrow stem cells for the potential treatment of various degenerative diseases. 

If you can't read medical jargon, what it says is "Stem cells are cool. We think stem cells gets into the blood and travel around the body to where its needed to help healing. Maybe we can find a natural something that'll make the body produce more stem cells."

That's right, this is a HYPOTHESIS. There is no proof that having more "loose" stem cells in your body would improve your health (remember, HYPOTHESIS), much less any compound that can do so.

Doesn't stop this MLM company from making products with such claims, of course. In fact, some of the principals in this company where previously sued (under a different company name) in Texas and lost a false advertising suit... also involving stem cells. That company used blue-green algae, some of which are POISONOUS (see "microcystins")  And it seems this particular company is still using similar formulas.

The company may sound confident in stating such things on their advertising materials. Look beyond the marketing material and look at the original research their products are based on. You may be surprised.

Conversely, if a company "guarantees" something, look for caveats and fine print. 

Scam Psychology: What Are YOUR Communication Vulnerabilities?

Scammers are often very good communicators. They can tailor their message for a wide variety of audiences and they are quick in recognizing your particular communication vulnerabilities, and thus, exploit you using those vulnerabilities. To counteract this, you need to know what type of communication vulnerabilities do you have. These are four questions you need to ask. Are you:

• Idea or evidence?
• Direct or diplomatic?
• Think about it or go all in? 
• Accept a map or blaze your own trail? 

Each of these questions may indicate a communication vulnerability. If you have more than one, you need to beware. If you have 3 or 4 you may be especially vulnerable. You may want to keep score for yourself. 

Are you an Idea person or Evidence person?

Some people are caught up in ideas. As long as they like the idea they could care less about the evidence. It's much like ideology, or as Stephen Colbert put it "Truthiness". Others are more about the evidence, and refuse to commit to an idea until they see enough.

In general, scammers prefer "idea person" as they are much easier to sell to. Once they sell the "idea",  the "idea person" will look for evidence to convince him- or herself.

Scams often involve a nebulous high concept (the "idea") that sounds logical and feasible, but in reality have tons of complexities that most people are not aware of or are impossible to research without being a professional.  The evidence people would want more evidence, while idea people would just accept the idea without further proof.

If you're an "idea" person, add 1 to your score.


Are you a direct person or a diplomatic person? 

Do you prefer cutting straight to the point, or do you prefer a bit more socialization?

Scammers prefer those of you who socialized, as they want to hit you with (real or fake) social proof and exploit various cognitive biases that all people have. They can also distract you with fancy displays and language, bandwagon effect, crowd hysteria, shilling, and other tricks.

Scammers also don't want any "direct" person to ask questions about more evidence. If you are too diplomatic you may never get any evidence, or just enough to convince yourself.

Scams often involve fancy events, elaborate presentations, exotic locations, and so on, where you mingle with people who were already convinced of the "idea" (see above).

If you're a diplomatic person, add 1.

Scam Psychology: Charlie Munger on How You Screw Up: Part 3 of 6

Charlie Munger (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You may have heard of Charlie Munger. But if you haven't, you should have heard of his partner: Warren Buffet, one of the 5 richest man in the world.  In 1995, Charlie Munger gave a speech at Harvard... about how people misjudge things. Here's my personal interpretation of his lessons, as applied to network marketing. You can read the full speech.  Please also check out the previous sections 1-4, and 5-8

----------

In the speech given at Harvard in 1995, Charlie Munger identified what he called "24 standard causes of human misjudgment." What he really meant is "24 reasons why you screw up".  Here is 9 through 12

9) Failure to Recognize Contrast Bias

Contrast bias is simple to explain... If I give you one item and ask you to rate it, you will give your honest opinion. However, if I have you rate that item, plus an HORRIBLE item, that original item will be rated higher, on the average, because there's a contrasting item.

Here's a simple experiment by Professor Cialdini. Two buckets of water, one quite cold, one quite hot (neither will actually harm). Volunteers are asked to put one hand in hot water and one hand in cold water for 5-10 seconds. Then both are removed and placed in the same bucket of water. The hand what was in hot water now feels cold, and the hand what was in cold water now feels warm/hot, but they are feeling the SAME bucket of water. It's the contrast that makes the water feel hot or cold.

And this experience shows up everywhere. It's often recommended in some pickup artistry books that you bring along an ugly friend or two to make yourself look better. This is the same idea: contrast.

A somewhat anecdotal and apocryphal real estate sales technique if you want to get rid of a not-so-good property is you show the prospects two really awful properties, have them go tsk-tsk and shake their head, then you take them to this "better" property, and they'll probably bite.

On the flip side, without a contrast or a measure against a neutral background (control group), you may not be aware of creeping changes. This can be termed "anti-contrast bias".

Then there's the "boiled frog" urban legend, where the claim is if you put a frog in a pot of water, but you cook it VERY VERY slowly, the frog will never jump out. It's not true, but it's an interesting legend and illustrates this point. You can "creep" in changes and if the movement is small enough it may escape notice.

So beware of this being used on you... Either a special contrast example is used to make a position to look better or worse than it really is... this coercing a bias, or someone tried to "creep" in some changes and rely on your momentum bias to say nothing.

BREAKING NEWS: Kevin Trudeau gets 10 year sentence

Kevin Trudeau gets 10 year sentence for 6 separate contempt of court and stiffing the court 37 million in fines.

Kevin Trudeau had been scamming for DECADES with bogus books, bogus sales, bogus minerals, bogus nutrition, bogus diet, and various types of bogosity for decades. He claimed that last few months in jail changed him and he owned up to everything and he's very sorry and blah blah blah.

Judge didn't believe him.  Please see related article below for story about his prior scams.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-kevin-trudeau-sentenced-20140317,0,832577.story

Related articles

• Kevin Trudeau Will Face Jail for Lying on TV... AND Stiffing the Court of Penalties
• MUST READ FOR MLM-ERS: What CAN You Say (and NOT say) In Online Ads
• Rich Dad on Ponzi:Kiyosaki really doesn't know anything
• How to Fake Being Infallible (and how to spot such fakes)

Duke University's Free Coursera Course on Critical Thinking: Take it!

Duke / Coursera has a free course on critical thinking. It can even lead to a certificate if you take a couple other classes, but by itself it's a great intro to critical thinking and proper arguments, as well as detect improper arguments being used on you.

https://class.coursera.org/thinkagain-003/lecture

Class is free, though they're already on Week 8, so you'll have a bit of catching up to do!

Scam Psychology: Charlie Munger on How You Screw Up, Part 2 of 6

You may have heard of Charlie Munger. But if you haven't, you should have heard of his partner: Warren Buffet, one of the 5 richest man in the world.  In 1995, Charlie Munger gave a speech at Harvard... about how people misjudge things. Here's my personal interpretation of his lessons, as applied to network marketing. You can read the full speech.

----------

In the speech given at Harvard in 1995, Charlie Munger identified what he called "24 standard causes of human misjudgment." What he really meant is "24 reasons why you screw up".  Read 1 through 4 here. Here is 5 through 8.


5) Not Understanding momentum bias and its causes

You are under the influence of other people every day, much like the dogs in Pavlov's famous experiment, so you have learned to associate two completely unrelated events, like the dogs salivate at the ringing of a bell, after they've been conditioned to associate bell with food. And you will continue to recognize the unrelated events as being related when they are not, and base your decisions on factors that were never relevant, or are no longer relevant. You have momentum bias.

Momentum bias is basically... that's the way it's always done... why change? Though there are some additional factors such a s Pavlovian association and how your mind looks in your memory and tries to find correlations... even when those aren't really applicable.

My dad once fixed a transmission problem by replacing the battery in a vehicle. Apparently the bad battery is confusing the computer and causing it to shift improperly. It is a very rare circumstance. However, ever since, my dad advocates "swap the battery" for all transmission problems even when it makes no sense. He has momentum bias. 

In terms of network marketing, you are trained early on that company = success and leaders = success, even though that may not be the case, and if you took that attitude with you to the next opportunity where it no longer applies, you have a momentum bias.

Learn to detect momentum bias in yourself and others. Do things because they are the proper decision for the time based on available evidence, not because "that's the way things are around here".

Scam Psychology: Charlie Munger on How You Screw Up, Part 1 of 6

You may have heard of Charlie Munger. But if you haven't, you should have heard of his partner: Warren Buffet, one of the 5 richest man in the world.  In 1995, Charlie Munger gave a speech at Harvard... about how people misjudge things. Here's my personal interpretation of his lessons, as applied to network marketing. You can read the full speech.

----------

In the speech given at Harvard in 1995, Charlie Munger identified what he called "24 standard causes of human misjudgment." I call it "24 reasons why you screw up".  Here is 1 through 4.

1) Not understanding power of incentives

Incentives is the standard way if you want to influence someone's behavior. If you are not getting the results you want, you are probably using the wrong incentives. And if you don't understand how incentives work, you won't get the full use out of them (or understand how they're used on you)

One of the most direct ways network marketing company influences its affiliates is the compensation package, also known as the comp plan. And comp plan is the best indication how serious the network marketing company about retail is how it structures its comp plan. If the comp plan rewards self-consumption by tying commission to your downline's self-consumption, you have a pyramid scheme, as little if any product is actually being retailed. By studying how the incentives are actually applied, you can see which way the company wants the affiliates to jump. And if that doesn't match what they say they are, perhaps the business is not what it appears to be.

Another way incentives play into network marketing is not realizing the way incentive actually works, generally by overestimating one type of incentive vs. another kind. One of the most frequently used rebuttals in network marketing "So-and-so is famous and works with MLM X. So-and-so can't POSSIBLY work for a scam as it would ruin his reputation, so MLM X can't be a scam." This argument basically postulates that Incentive A: MLM X paid So-and-So 75K for a special appearance at a convention for a speech is NOT sufficient to overcome Incentive B: Negative reputation due to MLM X may be a scam. However, when you think about it, this makes absolutely no sense at all. Plenty of celebrities have pitched for scam at one time or another. Snooki had shilled for Zantrex the super-caffeinated diet pill that was called out as bunk by doctors. Bob Eubanks was once tricked into making a test show which was then used as "pilot" to scam investors into funding a show that doesn't exist.  Celebrities are people too. They can be tricked, or they simply don't care as you're more focused on his/her celebrity status rather than what s/he endorses. The negative incentive is nowhere as big as the rebuttal claimed to be.

By not understanding the power of incentives (even negative incentives), some people came to the wrong conclusion.

MLM Absurdities: The "Big Placebo" industry that markets nutritional supplement woo

Dietary supplements Do they actually improve your health?
(Photo credit: Andrei Z)

In studying the network marketing industry, MLM Skeptic had come to a conclusion that most network marketing companies deal with nutritional supplements and skin care, or as the somewhat pejorative slang goes: "lotions and potions".

The "potions and lotions" often promise some very vague and generalized health effects, with weasel descriptions such as:

• Support your "stem cell physiology" (Huh? What does that mean?)
• Leading expert on importance of brain health (a chiropractor)

Recently I came upon a quote by Richard Dawkins, and found it very applicable here:

If any remedy is tested under controlled scientific conditions and proved to be effective, it will cease to be alternative and will simply become medicine. So-called alternative medicine either hasn't been tested or it has failed its tests. 

The same applies to any sort of nutritional supplement, really. If any nutritional supplement is properly scientifically tested and proved to be effective, it will be adopted as national or even global nutritional standard. And it's clear that except for a few select examples, most nutritional supplements on the market are just woo, as they have not been tested properly, or have failed its tests to be effective in something.

So why do these nutritional supplements proliferate, and can be found in supermarkets and pharmacies and more?

The reason is quite troubling, as this has to do with growing scientific IGNORANCE and science denial.

Scam Psychology: Why Bad Arguers Often Retreat to Conspiracies As Final Defense

Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura
Making a living through selling nothing... like a lot
of scams that call themselves network marketing
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In studying the financial scams and its victims, as well as the common arguments the brainwashed sheeple use to 'defend' the scam they're in, one of the most common "final arguments" is accuse any 'opponents' as a part of the conspiracy against something. While most often found among the "lotion and potion" defenders, they can be found among all sorts of scams, esp. one that had gone viral across the world (and thus must be eradicated).

There seem to be 3 general types of conspiracies when it comes to network marketing, which is grouped by size: personal conspiracy (it's just some hidden reason why the "opponent" is against the scheme), industry conspiracy (some sort of nebulous attack by competitors, though sometimes it's the government), or global conspiracy (often involving some nebulous mention of Bilderbergs, etc.)

All the conspiracy boils down to is "motivation denial of evidence (of scam)". Such conspiracy accusations can take the following forms (but obviously is not limited to such)

• You must have failed at ____ to be so bitter
• You must work for our competitor
• You're just out to get hits for your blog
• You are a part of medical establishment against the "wellness industry"
• You're a part of conspiracy of the rich to keep the rest of us poor

Problem with such conspiracy accusations is conspiracies often rely on circular logic.

Q:Is there any signs of a conspiracy? 
A:No. 
Q:So why is there a conspiracy? 
A:Because conspiracy suppressed the signs! 

Or on a more personal level

Q: Why do you think I work for a competitor? 
A: Because you said we are a scam!
Q: Do you have evidence that I work for a competitor? 
A: No... but it made sense to me!
Q: Here's evidence why ____ is a scam. 
A: You are a liar and those evidence are fake.
Q: Why would I fake such? 
A: Because you work for a competitor.  
Q: But you said you have no evidence that I work for a competitor. 
A: Because you hid it really well! 

Basically, any sort of evidence can be dismissed by "it's part of a conspiracy (against us)".  You have to PRESUME the conspiracy to be true to make sense of the twisted circular logic. It's "self-sealing".

Conspiracy theories are often quite fascinating to study, as it's basically how the mind twists itself into a gordian knot. Psychologists have studied correlations of conspiracy theorists (PDF file), such as is there any correlation between beliefs of conspiracies (i.e. does believing free market make one more like to believe climate denial?)

The results are surprising, and a little troubling. And so was the reaction by the conspiratorial community.

Guest Post: Vemma and Napoleon Hill's "Think and Grow Rich", Part 3 of 6

Previously we had SlayerofScams, a fellow scambuster on IGN, posting his essay on how people misconstrue Napoleon Hill's advice to coerce the weak-minded sheeple. [ Part 1 of 6 ] [ Part 2 of 6 ]

Here's part 3.  Enjoy

------------

SlayerofScams, January 7, 2014

This seems like a good time for Round Three of Napoleon Hill's Smackdown of Vemma/Verve From Beyond the Grave.

Here is Hill’s twenty-seventh cause for failure at life:

27. INTENTIONAL DISHONESTY. There is no substitute for honesty. One may be temporarily dishonest by force of circumstances over which one has no control, without permanent damage. But, there is NO HOPE for the person who is dishonest by choice. Sooner or later, his deeds will catch up with him, and he will pay by loss of reputation, and perhaps even loss of liberty.

First, a special message to Bob Proctor: You see that, Bob Proctor? Your biggest hero and favorite role model condemns you for your intentional dishonesty in telling countless (tens of thousands? millions?) of people that Vemma/Verve is a great company and legitimate business opportunity. By the same token, Hill condemns you for your intentional dishonesty in bastardizing his words, "a winner never quits," in order to brainwash the Vemma/Verve victims to think that eventually they will get rich if only they keep allowing Vemma/Verve to rob them blind month after month and year after year.

You, Bob Proctor, have said in your own seminars, and in The Secret movie, things like, "whatever you put out to the universe is going to come back to you, whether good or bad." If you really believe that, then you know that your shilling for the illegal pyramid scheme/scam Vemma/Verve is destined to cause the universe to repay you with negative consequences for your evil behavior. Your reputation is already ruined, just as Hill predicted it would be. Was some more money - in the form of ill-gotten gains that BK Boreyko pays to you - really worth forever throwing away your [former] good name and legacy for, Bob?

MLM Absurdities: When MLM Sells Not Just Woo, but Fake Woo

Back in early 2013, Waiora settled a lawsuit for selling watered down version of their own product (as full strength) That brought back some questions... how do MLM promoters, and I mean the ethical ones who really push products (instead of the scam-y ones that just recruits) actually know what they're selling is actually any good?

They rely on the company being forthright and honest of course. They don't know anything. They have to rely on company literature, genetic fallacy (this ingredient is good, so anything containing this ingredient must also be good!), pseudo-science, anecdotal evidence (which doesn't really count), and bandwagon fallacy (X users can't be all wrong!)  However, that's for another article.

What we're here to discuss is instead, what if the company's literature / promotional material is NOT the whole truth? But actually half-lies?

The Waiora case is a great example... That the product doesn't even contain what it supposedly contains (it has some... but at a far lesser concentration than labelled). According to tests done in 2010, Waiora product called NCD that allegedly has some anti-aging properties through "zeolite" (some sort of volcanic mineral that is supposed to help body purge "toxins"), is supposed to contain 2400 mg of zeolite per bottle.  Actual tests shows it has less than 150 mg... that's less than 10% of advertised strength.  The test was done at a second independent lab, which found the concentration to be even LOWER.

The lab results were presented to the company, who dismissed them, claiming the products were tested and *does* contain the advertised amount. However, a few months later, the company seem to have quietly switched suppliers and the product has a different flavor, consistency, and color than the allegedly watered down version.  A bottle of NCD (Natural Cell Defense) has MSRP of $50 per 15-mL bottle.

Class action lawsuit was launched in 2012, and was finally settled out of court in April 2013. Waiora, without admitting fault, is giving 3 bottles (full strength this time) of NCD to any one who ever bought NCD, as well as 12 million (unknown distribution).

This brings up a serious question... Whose fault was it that watered down the product? Usually a factory wouldn't cut corners like that, as it does them no good cutting corners like that. This heavily suggests there is some sort of complicity in Waiora, and their subsequent action, such as deny any wrongdoing, then quiet change factories and settle out of court would suggest (but NOT confirm) some sort of conspiracy between the factory and a senior official at Waiora.

But the real damage is how can any one in MLM trust that the product they got from the factory is real and contains whatever exotic ingredients it was supposed to contain in the right amount?

Wall Street Runs on Greed... And Conspiracies (so Don't Trust Them)

English: Wall Street sign
on Wall Street
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Previously, MLM Skeptic had pointed out the futility of using stock price as a measure of the company's "legitimacy". Wall Street will drive the stock prices higher as long as the company remains profitable, no matter how many people it screwed over.

However, Wall Street also runs on fear. Merely mention of Senator Markey's letter to SEC and FTC asking for an investigation into Herbalife dropped its stock price down more than 10% in a day.

And this fear had turned some stock analysts into conspiracy theorists, looking for someone to blame, and who better than the ultimate stock market boogeyman, and Herbalife "nemesis" Bill Ackman?

Brian Bolan published an essay on Zachs that claimed not only is Herbalife a good bet, he outright accused Senator Markey of colluding (perhaps unwittingly) with Bill Ackman to drive down Herbalife stock price to help with Ackman's epic short that started back at the end of 2012!

Bad Propaganda: Perpetuating Myths and Misunderstandings to Deflect Criticism

Editor's Note: This is start of a new segment 'Bad Propaganda' where I will analyze bad propaganda used by various MLM promoters who, whether intentionally, or by accident, or perhaps, even ignorance, perpetuate myths, misunderstandings, half-truths, and "spin" to promote their MLM when they don't have to. I've done this several times before, but usually as some sort of rebuttal (for Wazzub, Zeek, TVI Express, and other scams). This will make it a new 'regular feature'.

When a new MLM recruit wants to express their enthusiasm for their new venture, one of the things they do now is create a web page, esp. if they wish to market online. And one of the frequently asked questions asked about many MLMs is "isn't it just a pyramid scheme?"  There's the right way to answer it (explain the Koscot test and why MLM does NOT fit the Koscot test... if done correctly)... and then there is this way... done by a Vemma Rep.

In order not to embarrass him too badly, his name will not be used, and URL will NOT be included (don't want to give him any LinkJuice), but you can see a picture of his web page below...

The title is "Vemma : Scam or a legitimate opportunity for you and your friends" by "Nick".

From here on, his stuff is in blue, and my counterpoints will be in red.

You might be wondering if there is an opportunity to make money with Vemma, or if the Vemma scam allegations are true. Don't worry you have come to the right place seeking answers so look no further.

Wow, he claims to be the ONLY place on the web to offer answers about Vemma, look no further! This guy is full of himself, isn't he?

Nick (censored) is a 21 year old adventure seeker, who went from scrubbing dishes at an old hospital for minimum wage to traveling the Northwest and has built a distribution network of close to 1,000 people in the past 12 months. He has inspired young entrepreneurs into taking charge of their lives, and isn't afraid to challenge the status quo. CLICK HERE to learn about how you can become one of the next success stories on his team, and work personally with Nick and the other leaders of Treasure (censored) Vemma.

The standard rags-to-riches underdog story that appeals to the "rebel youth" crowd. 

   There are many Vemma reviews on the internet that make claims about the company, and for someone who wants to cut straight through the BS you need answers. So lets get to the bread and butter, but know that multi level marketing scams are hard to detect so in this article I will help you swim through the sludge of information on the web.

    In order to confirm or deny if Vemma is a scam you need to understand what the company is. They are a health and wellness business based out of Scottsdale Arizona. Founded in 2004 by Bk Boreyko, Vemma has done over 1 billion dollars in sales over the past nine years. Pretty big for a scam i'de say.

First paragraph is a completely waste of space, as it said nothing. Second paragraph started off wrong. To know whether Vemma is a scam, you need to define what a scam is, not what Vemma is. That comes second.

That was segued into a "too big/old to be a scam" myth, though he did couched it as a personal opinion, bad spelling and all.  Go look up FHTM should tell you it lasted 11 years before being shut down by the FTC as a pyramid scheme. Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme took even longer. Both are much bigger than Vemma. Clearly, Nick had NO IDEA what he was talking about. 

But wait, there's more! Lots more!

Scam Psychology: Why Scammers Use Testimonials, and Why You Should NOT Trust Positive Reviews

Why do advertisements almost seem to have testimonials? Because they do influence us.

Human beings are social creatures, and we do learn from each other, so when we hear testimonials, we pay attention. This is sometimes called 'social proof'. Some benefits from testimonials include:

• It builds trust
• It sound less sales-y
• It demonstrates the benefits of products/service

The problem happens when we do not apply "crap filter" to testimonials, and scammers start to seed the testimonials with fake entries. In fact, you can find people who will do fake testimonials for you for a mere $5.00 USD on Fiverr.com  Furthermore, in the modern world of information overload, people are less and less likely to fact-check or do "due diligence" on common stories.

Image via CrunchBase

It's estimated that in a few years, 20% of all reviews online (including testimonials) will be fake. The crowd-review websites such as Yelp, AngiesList, and so on who rely on testimonials and reviews are starting to combat this problem, and even government have started to notice such problems.

So you should NOT trust positive reviews, but seek to verify the claims.

And if you do find a sincere positive testimonial, it may STILL be "wrong"... in that the testimonial may be influenced by the five factors that result in a sincere but fake review.

Bad Argument: Lion Doesn't Lose Sleep Over Opinion of Sheep

Tywin Lannister armor (Photo credit: paul.hadsall)

Sometimes, when confronted with detailed criticism and lacking a proper reply, a MLMer would resort to sloganism, such as

"Lion Doesn't Lose Sleep Over Opinion of Sheep"

Apparently it had been adopted by Vemma followers as a general psych defense against criticism, as a substitute for "I don't care what you think. Ha!"

But what does this quote *really* mean?

Origin of the Quote

It was recently uttered by Tywin Lannister in "Game of Thrones" in the following form:

"A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinion of a sheep."

The origin of the expression seem to be lost in history. I've seen claims that it originated in Aesop's fables, in Homer's Illiad, and so on. What can be positively attributed was American author Vernon Howard (1912-1992), who wrote:

A truly strong person does not need the approval of others any more than a lion needs the approval of sheep.

The quote is a little on the wordy side, and let's just say Vernon Howard's books leans a bit toward the, uh... esoteric... With such words like "Cosmic Power", "Mental Magic", "Mystic Path", and so on...

It seems Mr. Howard merely rephrased Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) who stated:

Do not look for approval except for the consciousness of doing your best. 

Screen cap of The Simpsons 3e07 "Marge be NOT Proud"
where Bart put a lampshade over his head and is beating on it
with his slipper so he can't hear Marge lecturing him.
Is that you, when faced with proper criticism?

Clearly, the intent of the quote is to explain that if you do something, you should not do it because other people approve of it, you should do it because YOU want to do it.

It is NOT about criticism. It is about approval.

Therefore any attempt to use the quote to deflect criticism, i.e. "I don't want to listen to your negativity", is wrong. It's be like Bart putting a lampshade on his head and beating on it with his slipper so he can't hear Marge lecturing him.

But let's explore a little deeper...