Long Entry About M And Response to 20/20

Gosh, this is long...

I've waited on further responding to the 20/20 broadcast because I knew that with time, OTHER people would end up doing a better job responding than I could anyway! So I've just been reading, "amen"-ing, and collecting the commentaries of others since that anti-M expose' aired.

Since I have gotten oodles of hits to my blog since posting about the sugar pill attack, I know there are people out there who are googling about this situation. And because this is true, I'd like to make sure some of these really pertinent points get out there for people to read.

Obviously, if M was a fly-by-night company that was truly guilty of anything sinnister, they'd be falling apart right now and those who have been duped would be running to hide their heads in shame. But since M actually IS a stand-up, scientifically sound wellness company that is truly making a difference in people's lives, many people are stepping forward to help set the record straight. It's a shame the entertainment/high ratings industry can cause such a scramble but it looks like good things are coming out in the end!

This post is very long but covers lots of great points. If you are one that thinks M is a joke, I strongly encourage you to read this before you share your un-educated opinions with anyone else. If you still think it's a joke after doing your homework, then so be it. But speaking without knowing everything is just foolish.

I hope this long entry will be of some encouragement to those who are open to the idea of doing something non-medical (alternative) for their health. I know the times are here where people are coming around to see that something needs to be done on a daily basis to help improve wellness. As the old adage teaches, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." For this to become such a popular saying, we know that it used to be common sense to include nutrients into the daily routine as a way of keeping healthy. Today, there's just been such a warp in teaching that people think they can eat the junky American diet and pop pills or have surgery when problems occur. One day it will become mainstream (again) to know that you can't have health without having nutrition. And when the food on the plate (or in the cardboard box or paper wrapping) doesn't provide that nutrition, people will reach for those supplements that scientifically prove they have what the foods are missing. And it won't come as such a surprise when people see positive changes when those nutrients are ingested. Those positive changes will no longer stir up such controversy because they will be so commonplace that people won't sound like liars when they tell their friends and loved ones about the improvements in their lives!

Now, to the words of others.

First, the truth about Angie Rhodes, the girl with cancer interviewed in the 20/20 story:

My name is Angie Law and I am a Presidential from Colorado. I can tell you the rest of that story...
Angie (Rhodes) came to a class we taught June 2nd in Warrensburg, Missouri, to set the story straight. She was very disappointed with the biased slant and misrepresentation of the whole truth that 20/20 portrayed! She detailed her
story explaining the fist sized tumor, the surgery that got most of it, the
two areas that were not removed because it would have left her with stroke
like symptoms, the fact that she was in a terminal situation, and the fact
that HER doctors, reviewing the scans, reported there was no tumor left
after 6 weeks of g therapy. Subsequently, the most recent scan
Mar. 12th when ABC was present, Angie’s oncologist opinion was, “I see
nothing there to be concerned about. Keep taking your g and I
will see you in 3 months for another scan.” Her surgeon’s response to the
recent scan was, “the scans look great! This is what we want and hope to
see but don’t always get!”

While they still recommend chemo and radiation they told her to continue
with what she's doing as it seems to be working! It was a great
disappointment for Angie that 20/20 producers, after contacting her doctor
on Thursday, did NOT include ANY of his comments. We can only speculate
why. Of course, she is continuing with g and believes whole
heartedly that g have saved her life BECAUSE they simply
provided the raw materials necessary for her body to function properly.

She was going to do the chemo and radiation IF she didn't see results with
the nutrients. She was NOT shutting that door completely. I encouraged her
to do what she felt was best for her, pursuing all options. She knew that
some choose to do chemo with the g and some choose to use
g without chemo. She chose the nutrients first without chemo
and radiation because she felt she had time to add the traditional therapy
later; if positive results were not achieved. Angie watched her dad suffer
with cancer receiving chemo and radiation for a brain tumor, but he died
anyway. She did not want to lose her hair and suffer with the side effects
of chemo and radiation IF it wasn't necessary. NO ONE TOLD HER TO NOT DO
THE CHEMO--it was her choice. AND, no one told her that g
could or would "CURE" her.

In the interview (what wasn't aired) she was bullied, baited and was so upset
when she realized that the interview was NOT just a follow up or a human
interest story. The local NBC news had followed her case because the
University she attended had raised money to pay for her surgery. She WAS
NOT expecting the big people from 20/20 to interview her for anything other
than what had been done already from the local network. So, in her
distress, not knowing whether or not she could trust Jim Avala, being
nervous, and MOST IMPORTANTLY being only 6 months on g, she
used the "cure" word (after HE used the cure word) not even realizing she
had said it until she saw the interview!

Those of us who have seen the interview know SHE was the ONLY wonderful part
about it! She was poised under pressure and handled herself beautifully.
It's just too bad they did not show the entire interview with Angie AND her
adoptive parents. She wants to get the truth known and is upset that they
have portrayed the program the way they did.

Angie Rhoads and her adoptive parents, Brian and Brenda Wilson, have
reviewed and approved this entire statement and are anxious for the truth to
be known. They asked that their names be listed so that the reader would
not think I put words in their mouth.

Also, read the attachments from Mark Johnson and Dr. Wilkins as they do a
great job in telling the “rest of the story.”

Sincerely,

Angie L
Angie Rhoads, Brian and Brenda Wilson of Lee’s Summit Missouri

Next, excerpts from Mark Johnson of Georgia:

regarding Dr. Hudson Freeze (I always thought his name was spelled Frieze but no one else, including 20/20 spelled it that way) and his denial that g are of any value:

In December 1998, Dr. Freeze and other scientists conducted a study on healthy humans who were given radioactively labeled galactose, mannose or glucose. To their amazement, galactose and mannose were directly absorbed and incorporated into glycoproteins without first being broken down into glucose. Dr. Freeze and the other scientists concluded: "that specific dietary sugars could represent a new class of nutrients."

also:

In a November 1998 review by Dr. Freeze and others, he concluded that disorders in glycosylation are much more common than originally thought and that there is emerging belief that Diabetes in children is just one such genetic disorder. The authors stated that "the finding that mannose, but not glucose, corrected glycosylation .... was surprising ... Mannose offers an attractive therapy because it should be easy to administer and non-toxic ... There is scant information on the availability of mannose in food, but dietary mannose is probably insufficient to supply all glycosylation." We all know that these "dietary sugars" are found in A. So why did Dr. Freeze respond as he did? We can only speculate.

Mark's comments about the other expert interviewed on 20/20 and about g in scientific literature:

The other person touted by ABC as a leading scientist in glycobiology named Ronald Schnaar, Ph.D. of John's Hopkins was asked the following question by the ABC reporter: "Is there any valid scientific evidence that this M product really works?" Dr. Schnaar responds by referencing the National Library of Medicine (www.PubMed.org) as the main repository of medical knowledge. Then with intentioned drama, he looks at the reporter and makes a circle with his right hand and says quite emphatically, "Zero." Well, he is absolutely correct, because "A" is a company brand name. The term "g" or "g-n" is the word that M coined as a new generic term for scientists to use in research papers.
G are found to be essential in the production of glycoproteins made in human cells (Harper's Biochemistry Textbook, 24th ed. and later). There are many listings on PubMed for "g." Basic common sense confirms that scientific journals, papers and research, all use terms like "g-n" "glycoprotein," "glycoconjugate," "glycoform," "mannose," ,"fucose," "xylose," etc... Journals report on the science, not on a particular company's name or
brand names. As an example, published papers focus on the results of clinical studies using "monosaccharides" and "oligosaccharides." Ol' Doc Ronnie is not demonstrating intellectual honesty with his answer to the question. Besides, there have been hundreds of published studies using M's g. Someone needs to show him how to find them.

As an example, two double blind, placebo-controlled studies conducted at the University of Arkansas, evaluated the effects of g supplementation upon the brain functioning of twenty healthy college students. It was found that g (1) enhanced brainwave frequencies known to be associated with attention or alertness, (2) increased reaction time and (3) enhanced concentration (Wang, Pivik and Dykman – University of Arkansas, presented April (2002) This study was done with M's g.

Contrary to the drama of Doc Ronnie, and the sensationalist, yellow journalistic reporting of ABC's "20/20 Entertainment Show," here are the counts for the number of published papers on some of the components of A as listed directly from the PubMed.org web site:
Mannose: 20,265 papers
Fucose: 7,983 papers
Galactose: 26,832 papers
Xylose: 7,493 papers
Glucose: 302,162 papers
N-Acetyl Galactosamine: 1,175 papers
N-Acetyl Glucosamine: 3,744 papers
N-Acetyl Neuraminic Acid: 3,766 papers
Arabinogalactan: 776 papers
Arabinose: 4,308 papers

It is obvious that ABC, partially funded by revenues from pharmaceutical company advertisers who know that our products are making a difference in the quality of life of thousands, has purposefully tried to damage M in the 20/20 piece.

Regarding 20/20's angle:

If ABC was interested in fair reporting, they would have taken a different approach. For starters, they would have interviewed the tens of thousands of people whose health has recovered as a result of using these products. That would be some good news, worthy of airing. If they were reporting honestly, the 20/20 story would have mentioned that M's g have been found to be necessary to be incorporated into special "quick response foods" by the World Health Organization and the United Nations, to help nourish distressed and starving people in crisis situations. Perhaps ABC could have mentioned about the ministry of MR and the global impact that M's g are having on children around the world like those with AIDS in Africa. Surely ABC could let people know about the up-coming 8th Wonder of the World Concert Series, where MR is a beneficiary and where billions of people are going to learn about MR and be exposed to the benefits of A for saving the lives of children.

From Mark regarding other angles 20/20 could have taken:

If ABC were so accurate in reporting, surely they wouldn't have missed the fact that rheumatologist, Dr. John Axford of the Royal Society of Medicine and a renowned author of several medical textbooks as well as a leading researcher on Rheumatoid Arthritis, joined the board of directors of M. Dr. Axford is helping with g research being conducted simultaneously both at Mannatech and at the Royal Society of Medicine.

Or what about the first place award given to M's Chief Science Officer, Dr. Rob Sinnott, for the poster presentation he recently showed. Dr. Sinnott's presentation explained how emerging science is showing that digestive bacteria play an important role in the chemical breakdown, assimilation and absorption of dietary sugars found in our product, A.

I guess ABC 20/20 video editors were in a hurry and "just forgot" to put the name and title underneath the short video clip of H. Reginald McDaniel, M.D. (Dr. Reg). Dr. Reg, who was one of the highest paid pathologists (doctor specializing in disease) in the Southwest, was shown speaking about glyconutrients to an audience. I guess ABC sort of wanted the gullible viewing public to think he was just some wacko renegade M Associate peddling a "sugar pill."

ABC failed to mention that Dr. McDaniel is one of the co-inventors listed on the M A patent, that he has been doing clinical research with hundreds of patients over the past quarter century, and that he is the founder of the Fisher Institute for Medical Research.

ABC should have known that Dr. McDaniel, as a professional witness, testified before Congress on Comprehensive Medical Care for Bioterrorism Exposure. At that historic event, Dr. McDaniel's exhibits and scientific data showed that "glyconutrients boost the level of innate body defenses by enhancing the synthesis of cytokines that are designed to protect the body from ALL infectious agents ." (http://www.fisherinstitute.org – complete syllabus available for
anyone).

The investigative ABC reporters seemed to have missed a chance of a newsworthy story
relevant to the current stem cell debate. Dr. McDaniel has published research based on accepted testing methods demonstrating that supplementation with glyconutrients greatly increases the production of adult stem cells in the human body. He has presented this incredible finding before state legislators in an attempt to inform them that fetal stem-cell research is no longer necessary since our own bodies can generate massive quantities of healing stem cells when given glyconutrients. In fact, he reveals that implanting stem cells from other people is actually very dangerous and even fatal (as studies in China have proved)!

Oh, and by the way, you'd think that ABC would have mentioned something about the American Medical Association (AMA) approved Continuing Medical Education (CME's) Category 1 Credits now available for Medical Doctors, Nurses, Dentists and other medical professionals on the benefits and applications of glyconutritionals. Medical professionals are required to accumulate CME's in order to maintain their medical licenses to practice in the various states where they work. Courses at various Glycomics Medical Conferences have addressed specific disease conditions that respond beneficially with the use of glyconutrients and other nutritional
components. Medical professionals are taught about the potential benefits of dietary
supplements and how to recognize quality, pharmaceutical grade supplements and nutritional technologies.

Dr. Gilbert Kaats, Ph.D., CEO of Integrated Health Technologies who has been independently testing the effects of nutritional supplements for nearly 30 years, has performed one of the countries largest longitudinal studies on nutritional supplements – specifically M's glyconutritionals. Testing blood work and bone density of nearly 7,000 people over the past 12 years, his findings are impressive. In his conclusions, 8 of 10 biomarkers associated with the disabilities of aging are actually reversed on A. Further, Dr. Kaats states that there is
no competition with M with regards to (1) efficacy, (2) safety and (3) consistency – the three things one desires in a nutritional supplement product.

I guess in the name of fairness, ABC just didn't have enough time to "squeeze it all in."

Next is an excerpt from David Wilkins, MD

I felt compelled to respond to the 20/20 report on A. I have included my bio so you will know my background.

I received my undergraduate degree at La Sierra College followed by my Doctor of Medicine Degree from Loma Linda University School of Medicine in 1970. In 1974 I completed a residency in Ophthalmology also at LLU School of Medicine. After thirteen years of private practice in Ophthalmology I joined the faculty ofLoma Linda University in 1987. Two years later I became the Dept chairman. I also ran the Ophthalmology residency program for nearly ten years. Since the year two thousand I have enjoyed refocusing my attention on glycobiology and the role glyconutrients, and phytochemicals play in wellness and disease.

I would like to add my voice to point out the mockery of the two experts you had on the program. They should know that you will never find a reference in the National Medical Library to a company brand name. When you search with the specific names of the structural sugars in Ambrotose there are several hundred thousands of peer reviewed pagers on these important sugars.

It has been clearly shown that there are active transport mechanisms for many of these sugars allowing them to be absorbed undigested and found in cell structure in less that 2 hours. World renown experts such as Dr. John Axford M.D. at the Royal Society of Medicine (world recognized expert in the field of research in rheumatoid disorders) was so impressed with M's scientific efforts with these sugars that he joined their board of directors to help direct further investigative efforts. His current ground breaking work with the specific formulation of Ambrotose is giving further validation to the importance of glyconutrient sugars in modulating dangerous inflammatory responses.

Dr. Wilkins words directly to ABC 20/20:

You and your experts failed to mention that you cannot do nutritional research in a drug paradigm environment. T. Collin Campbell in his recent book "The China Study" says that all kinds of unwarranted conclusions will be drawn if nutrition is studied the way drugs are. There is too much nutrient packaging, interplay and team work going on between food compounds to isolate a single ingredient, give it in major amounts, and look at a specific targeted effect as one would do with a drug. That is why the beta carotene, and vitamin E studies came to grossly wrong conclusions as did the "Women's Health Study" and the large "Nurses Health Study" This false approach to nutritional study is called by Dr. Campbell "Scientific Reductionism." You experts never mentioned this.

If your reporting was not biased you would have asked the public to read "The Truth About the Drug Companies" by Marcia Angell M.D. recent editor and chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. She has been a perfect position to know the truth that we have an economically customized evidenced based medicine system. Incestuous relationships between drug companies, reviewers of their submissions, the FDA, and NIH are simply obscene. The drug companies have no interest in finding of natural ways to improve the health equation. They will spend money shamelessly to discredit and slant the truth about technology such as A. The drugs properly used by the system are the 4th leading cause of death in this country (JAMA 2002). Optimizing cellular nutritional biochemistry has killed no one and has been a major benefit to so many. You failed to point this out.

If you were honest in your reporting you would have disclosed all the sources of funds making the 20 /20 broadcast possible. You would also have had your experts declare there relationships with any drug companies (financial or reviewing their work) including any drug company funded research they are doing. The last thing the system wants is for technology such as Ambrotose to be helpful regardless of cost to discredit it.

You refused to tell the public the difference between cell structure function science and the probability science of those in the white coats. You stated and left unchallenged the idea that the only way anything can be known is the drug paradigm. That is fine if you are going to give some form of therapy that can potentially help and harm people and they want to know the gamble they are taking. It is truth and not probability that comes from structure function science. Once truth is known there is no risk in acting on it. There is no significant downside as with all drugs.

We know that there is a requirement for glyconutrients. When we know that the body with its fail safe system to supply the required glyconutrients (when not consumed) can supply barely enough to keep a person going but not enough to optimize the bodies resources handle challenges it makes sense to supply it and see what the cellular community can do to improve quality and length of life. This is the support of cell and system design not the treatment of disease of disorder.

Your experts said that the body can make all the sugars and that is true. What they didn't tell you is that the system to do that is a slow, low output system prone to error and dysfunction because of exposure to toxins and other stresses.

You in your presentation kept trying to force the notion that this is about treating disease with Ambrotose. Repeatedly Sam Castor indicated that this was not about treating disease, but rather the optimizing of the bodies normal physiologic mechanisms. He repeatedly suggested that this approach should be used in conjunction with standard of care. You carefully edited out this emphasis by selecting only sound bites that would, out of context, support your agenda and put A in a negative light. I listened to the entire interview with Sam Castor and it is shamefully clear what you did not want the public to hear.

There is so much more that could be said but there is enough here to clearly expose your yellow journalism masquerading as investigative reporting. In fairness another program should be done to address the issues I have brought up and the content of Mark Johnson's important comments below.

I have personally studied and supported this technology for ten years and have seen so much benefit in very challenged people with regards to quality of life. I have staked my reputation on it and now give full time and effort to make this information available to health care providers in a continuing education Category I environment. Continuing education Information that can qualify them to keep their license.

Respectfully,

David Wilkins M.D.

In response to all of this, M posted this video at youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-BZ3j6Q6GM

So ask yourself, "If M is truly a scam company, why are they spending so much time, energy, and money to keep their information clear and public? If they were really wanting to pull a fast one on the public, wouldn't they put less focus on science?"

This science stuff is a little heavy if you're not interested in knowing the truth but it's PERFECT for those who are doing their due diligence and researching whether or not this glyco stuff is really just the "placebo" effect or if these "sugar pills" actually make a true impact on health.

Lastly, I'll close with words from Kevin Robbins:

First off, know that 20/20 is not in the news business. ABC is not "mad at us". They don't care. They are in the entertainment business. And… all they care about is viewers and ratings. And what drives ratings? People love to watch train wrecks. So, ABC set out to create a HUGE train wreck. They heard about us through an ABC affiliate who ran a story on Angie. I'm sure they Googled us, read the class action lawsuit, and probably figured we were a bunch of hillbillies from Texas who were scamming people. They made up their mind and went out to "prove" their hypothesis.

But if you watch the episode again, taking the emotion out…. What amount of real substance did they really come out with? Almost nothing! They had all the resources of ABC news, they had all the time they wanted, they had access to anyone and everyone who might have been opposed to us. Going undercover, they went to countless number of meetings. I'm sure they talked to as many people as they could TRYING to get someone to say something inflammatory that they could use in their expose. They couldn't even find anyone who had actually taken our products and claimed that they didn't work (and don't think ABC didn't try to find someone who would claim that our products actually HARMED them).

All of that… and what did they come up with? They stated numerous times that Mannatech does NOT claim our products cure anything. They recorded associates saying the same thing. They didn't catch ANYONE directly promoting our products as a cure for anything? I think that is AMAZING! All they got were associates implying that people with certain conditions would benefit from taking our products. OK GREAT! They would… as would all of us! All they got was a couple of PhDs (who have NEVER tested our products) claiming that our science doesn't stand up to the wonderful world of pharmaceuticals. All they got was Bill Merlo being silly doing an ice-breaker before a M asking everyone to go shake hands and say, "I want to be rich"! Of course right before that, Bill said to go shake hands and say, "I want to be healthy"! All they got was some very old news about Sam having a prior business that failed (which of course has been answered dozens of times). All they got was building this HUGE story around "poor" Angie… and then at the end having to admit "no change" in her condition (of course implying that meant BAD NEWS, when in fact that was possibly VERY GOOD news for her).

So, if I could make a baseball analogy….. I believe that ABC sent their best and strongest hitter up to the plate with the bases loaded. And after hitting some LONG, LOUD foul balls, in the end, I believe they STRUCK OUT!

May God bless you and your health!