|
August 6, 1999 Mannatech Inc. is investigating allegations that a study it uses to sell its nutritional supplements wasn't funded by a federal agency or conducted under the auspices of the University of California, as it previously claimed. The Coppell, Texas-based company said it is conducting an internal investigation of the issues, raised by a news report published Wednesday. The study by Dr. Darryl See ranked Mannatech products among the top five of 196 nutritional supplements tested. Meanwhile, the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association said it will publish a correction of See's article on the study. The journal yesterday put a letter from See on its Web site stating that the study wasn't federally funded and that he submitted it to JANA after leaving the U.C. Irvine Medical School. "We regret that this information was not made available to us prior to the peer-review and publication of the article," the journal's co-editors said in a preface to the letter. In his letter, See disclosed two conflicts of interest, also reported Wednesday, that were omitted when the article was published in February. "My wife distributed, resold and/or recommended in her practice products from several of the companies with products in the study," See wrote. She has been a Mannatech distributor since 1997, the earlier news report said. Paid Consultant"I was a paid consultant to one of the companies with products evaluated in the study at the time of the manuscript preparation, but not at the time of the study," he also wrote. See has been paid more than $100,000 by Mannatech in speaker's fees and research grants since 1998, along with another $100,000 in royalties for audio tapes touting its supplements, the news report said. On the tapes, See recommends Mannatech supplements for treatment of diseases such as AIDS and cancer. Mannatech, in yesterday's statement, said it learned late Tuesday that the study might not have been federally funded or performed under the auspices of the U.C. Irvine Medical School. In response to a reporter's questions five days earlier, the company said the study was conducted at the university, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Later that day, Mannatech issued a memo to its more than 400,000 distributors in the U.S., Canada and Australia with the same information. "We visited him in his lab at the university. We obtained copies of the NIH grants that funded the study," the memo said. "Dr. See's study did not make false claims." Last week's memo also cited an audit of the study, conducted by statistician Cindy Ford. Mannatech Official Frustrated"We paid $30,000 to an independent agency to audit the data and are confident that it is correct," it said. Ford, in an interview last week, said she double-checked the study's calculations and couldn't verify that the data used came from the lab tests See described. Ford said See didn't turn over laboratory notebooks used in the study, despite requests from Kathy Dykman, Mannatech's international medical director for clinical studies. "She was frustrated," said Ford, who also said none of the documents See provided were signed by the lab technicians who performed the tests. Dykman didn't return calls seeking comment. Marikel Chatard, a laboratory technician who See said did many of the tests for his study, said in an interview that she knew nothing about the study. Mannatech shares fell 3/16 to 10 in midafternoon trading. That's down from 11 1/2 at the time of Wednesday's news report.
MLM Watch Home Page
|
|
Legal Notice: The administration of this website was taken over about September, 2004 by Med Trans 1, Inc.. The content on this site was the work of the late Jan Groenveld, and as such, Med Trans 1, Inc. is not knowledgeable about the specific content presented on this website, nor is responsible for any inaccuracies that may be discovered. We wish to be fair to all parties involved, and there is no intent whatsoever to present inaccurate in formation. Therefore, if any group or individual feels that information presented on this site is inaccurate, please contact us. If the information is proven to be inaccurate, it will be either changed or removed upon receipt of verifiable proof being supplied to us. Verifiable proof is defined as a disinterested source independent of your group such as newspaper, encyclopedia, public records and similar sources. Any group or individual who wishes to supply a rebuttal to any information presented on this site may do so at any time. The length of the rebuttal is to be no more in length (number of words) than the article or material being rebutted. The rebuttal is to be within an e-mail and not as an attachment. E-Mails with attachments are automatically deleted unread due to the large number of virus attacks we received in the past. Literature, books etc. mailed to us will be discarded unread unless we specifically requested the materials. Those who send mail that is abusive in nature or combative, will not receive a response from us. Nor will any article be debated or extensive discussions be engaged in regarding an article published. Any problems with the website, please contact the webmaster
|