Doing a Xango Presentation: Skype

[Preacher]

I'm doing a Xango presentation on Skype tonight.  Get all the details.  Don't trust drug companies with your health.  Why use a drug when a food will do the job?   8pm central on skype.  Yes you'll have to show your mug.    Anyways the room fills fast.   ryan.daniel77.   Hope to see you'll there.  Money is good and the product real.

[Tiresais]

I'm doing a Xango presentation on Skype tonight.  Get all the details.  Don't trust drug companies with your health.  Why use a drug when a food will do the job?   8pm central on skype.  Yes you'll have to show your mug.    Anyways the room fills fast.   ryan.daniel77.   Hope to see you'll there.  Money is good and the product real.

I presume you're talking about vitamins? Because there's no amount of vegetables that battles cancer and HIV.

[Preacher]

Ah ha.   That why you should be in a skype chat with me and get the info.   There really only two causes to disease, Free Radicals and Inflammation.  Food is medicine.  Medicine is big business.   

[Tiresais]

Ah ha.   That why you should be in a skype chat with me and get the info.   There really only two causes to disease, Free Radicals and Inflammation.  Food is medicine.  Medicine is big business.

If you believe that you'll believe anything.

[Preacher]

I believe PubMed...  American Heart Institute..American Cancer Society...  Mayo Clinic that specializes in hard to treat diseases, to name a few.  But any person willing to do any research will quickly find that "Modern Countries"  are sicker and traditional medicine woefully ineffective.  That's because the FDA states that only a DRUG can cure a disease.  And sadly, most people have believed that.  I could go on and on.  When you get a chance google The Toxic Twelve the 12 most carcinogenic chemicals that are in your household products.     

Here's some info on the product. 
The Science
http://www.mymangosteen.com/Healthychoice2014/media_vault.asp?v=67

Here are some videos I produced for people who uses it with significant results.
My bass player had no more arthritis in 7weeks and was no long in the the diabetic threshold in 7 months.


You can drink it or apply topically

[Tiresais]

I believe PubMed...  American Heart Institute..American Cancer Society...  Mayo Clinic that specializes in hard to treat diseases, to name a few.  But any person willing to do any research will quickly find that "Modern Countries"  are sicker and traditional medicine woefully ineffective.  That's because the FDA states that only a DRUG can cure a disease.  And sadly, most people have believed that.  I could go on and on.  When you get a chance google The Toxic Twelve the 12 most carcinogenic chemicals that are in your household products.     

Here's some info on the product. 
The Science
http://www.mymangosteen.com/Healthychoice2014/media_vault.asp?v=67

Here are some videos I produced for people who uses it with significant results.
My bass player had no more arthritis in 7weeks and was no long in the the diabetic threshold in 7 months.


You can drink it or apply topically

And when you get this scientifically peer-reviews with repeatable, testable results I'll believe you. Until then you're speaking hot air and homoeopathy. The Western world is not more sick, do you have a single shred of evidence for this? 

The FDA claims no such thing - the definition of disease includes that which is caused by deficiency, such as Scurvy, which can be treated by addressing the dietary imbalance. You're being taken in by a common 'new wave' of pseudo-science that proclaims that all drugs are bad. You should do some more independent research to test what you're saying - a simple precursory look would have told you that "Modern Countries" are not more sick, that countries with more advanced medicine have clear health advantages (such as life expectancy, less deaths in childbirth and infancy) than those who do not, and that the FDA does not say what you claim.

 The common saying is "everything gives you cancer", due to the prevalence of associated relationships and simply the fact that if you live long enough you're likely to get cancer - that's why it's a rich world problem (if life expectancy is around 40/45 as it is in some countries with a high HIV infection rate, cancer is almost a non-issue).

[Preacher]

peer-reviews with repeatable, testable results   You know if you wanted it you could have simply gone to the sites PubMed...  American Heart Institute..American Cancer Society...  Mayo Clinic and gotten it.  You could check Inflammation and disease.  Here's a snip from Time magazine:

“Suddenly, inflammation has become one of the hottest areas of medical research.  Hardly a week goes by without the publication of yet another study uncovering a new way that chronic inflammation does harm to the body.  It destabilizes cholesterol deposits in the coronary arteries, leading to heart attacks and potentially even strokes.  It chews up nerve cells in the brains of Alzheimer’s victims.  It may even foster the proliferation of abnormal cells and facilitate their transformation into cancer. In other words, chronic inflammation may be the engine that drives many of the most feared illnesses of middle and old age.”

But there are many many...many papers published by respectable organizations.  You just prefer arrogance as a lead in.   You quoting "everything gives you cancer"...  T that is the most ignorant thing to say.  Really?  Just do a simple cross reference between the healthiest countries, Food and Cancer.   You talking a bunch a rubbish about dying in pregnancy, 40yrs lifespan and HIV...    

Oh and on your conviction regarding the FDA.  Did you go to FDA.gov?   Anyways

The manufacturer is responsible for ensuring the accuracy and truthfulness of these claims; they are not pre-approved by FDA but must be truthful and not misleading. If a dietary supplement label includes such a claim, it must state in a "disclaimer" that FDA has not evaluated the claim. The disclaimer must also state that the dietary supplement product is not intended to "diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease," because only a drug can legally make such a claim. Further information regarding structure/function claims can be found in FDA's

Truth is you put Food and Drugs together you got a racket.  Did you know that most Doctors aren't trained in Nutrition?   They are trained in Pharmacology.   

[Tiresais]

peer-reviews with repeatable, testable results   You know if you wanted it you could have simply gone to the sites PubMed...  American Heart Institute..American Cancer Society...  Mayo Clinic and gotten it.  You could check Inflammation and disease.  Here's a snip from Time magazine:

“Suddenly, inflammation has become one of the hottest areas of medical research.  Hardly a week goes by without the publication of yet another study uncovering a new way that chronic inflammation does harm to the body.  It destabilizes cholesterol deposits in the coronary arteries, leading to heart attacks and potentially even strokes.  It chews up nerve cells in the brains of Alzheimer’s victims.  It may even foster the proliferation of abnormal cells and facilitate their transformation into cancer. In other words, chronic inflammation may be the engine that drives many of the most feared illnesses of middle and old age.”

But there are many many...many papers published by respectable organizations.  You just prefer arrogance as a lead in.   You quoting "everything gives you cancer"...  T that is the most ignorant thing to say.  Really?  Just do a simple cross reference between the healthiest countries, Food and Cancer.   You talking a bunch a rubbish about dying in pregnancy, 40yrs lifespan and HIV...    

Oh and on your conviction regarding the FDA.  Did you go to FDA.gov?   Anyways

The manufacturer is responsible for ensuring the accuracy and truthfulness of these claims; they are not pre-approved by FDA but must be truthful and not misleading. If a dietary supplement label includes such a claim, it must state in a "disclaimer" that FDA has not evaluated the claim. The disclaimer must also state that the dietary supplement product is not intended to "diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease," because only a drug can legally make such a claim. Further information regarding structure/function claims can be found in FDA's

Truth is you put Food and Drugs together you got a racket.  Did you know that most Doctors aren't trained in Nutrition?   They are trained in Pharmacology.   

As you've glossed over, the reason the richest countries have the highest rates of cancer is because they have the lowest rate of deaths in other medical complaints that might kill you before you get cancer - it's like saying that doctors cause illness - you've missed the important point entirely.

Possibly there was some confusion - there are health benefits from eating right. I took issue with you dangerous claim that drugs don't help treat disease, which they patently do.

Your quote is a blatent quote-mine, taken out of context. if you had read the rest of the webpage you got that from - http://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/labelingnutrition/ucm111447.htm You will notice you are reading from the "structure/function" section, despite "health claims" being dealt with in another section. More importantly, if a substance can cure a disease (apart from the diseases caused by a lack of a substance as mentioned before) it must necessarily be a drug, since the definition of a drug is;

The FD&C Act defines drugs, in part, by their intended use, as "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease" and "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals" [FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)].

So you're committing a fallacy in definition here - you're trying to find the 'married bachelor'.

I personally agree that doctors should received more training in nutrition - there are a number of excellent studies talking about the positive health benefits of an improved diet or a targeted died for subsections of society. Your claim that drugs are useless, however, is complete and utter rubbish.

[Preacher]

I never said drugs are useless.  The question I raised was, "Why use a drug when a Food can do the job?"  In reference to the powerful anti-inflammatory juice called Xango. It's backed up with all the research you want...Double-blind and all.  The impact of the compound is documented in science to do what it claims.  Beyond that it has passed the true test within the population with only well effects.  Many people will testify to how it helped with their cancers..various types.  I'll leave it at that. 

Regarding the FDA:   You'll see that it's not just regarding labeling.  It is a stance on what can be used to treat illness.  You can thank the lobbying drug companies for that.  But you making my point and it's right there in your definition.

The FD&C Act defines drugs, in part, by their intended use, as "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease" and "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals" [FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)].

Science knows that foods can do the job drugs are trying to do.  So it benefits drug lobbyist to claim that only a drug can cure a disease.  I'm not sure why you trying to make this into something I conceived.  This is a popular point of contention between many doctors and nutritionist. 

[Bakes]

The FD&C Act defines drugs, in part, by their intended use, as "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease" and "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals" [FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)].

All that statement is saying is that the FDA doesn't define "food" as a "drug".  Doesn't at all say that the agency believes only drugs can cure diseases.

[Tiresais]

I never said drugs are useless.  The question I raised was, "Why use a drug when a Food can do the job?"  In reference to the powerful anti-inflammatory juice called Xango. It's backed up with all the research you want...Double-blind and all.  The impact of the compound is documented in science to do what it claims.  Beyond that it has passed the true test within the population with only well effects.  Many people will testify to how it helped with their cancers..various types.  I'll leave it at that. 

Regarding the FDA:   You'll see that it's not just regarding labeling.  It is a stance on what can be used to treat illness.  You can thank the lobbying drug companies for that.  But you making my point and it's right there in your definition.

The FD&C Act defines drugs, in part, by their intended use, as "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease" and "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals" [FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)].

Science knows that foods can do the job drugs are trying to do.  So it benefits drug lobbyist to claim that only a drug can cure a disease.  I'm not sure why you trying to make this into something I conceived.  This is a popular point of contention between many doctors and nutritionist.

Did you even do a precursory google of Xango? Their wiki pagei s littered with claims that they're misselling the product and claiming things it can't do. Moreover it's turnover is in the order of tens of millions of dollars, so this is hardly a David and Goliath story. Do you profit from the sales of Xango Preacher? You talked about the Mayo clinic - they have specifically said this stuff doesn't do what it claims...

Either you've been taken in by this or you're being dishonest in order to sell a product you can financially gain from.

[Preacher]

First Mr. T. you can't have selective reasoning. You claiming I didn't do the research but on the next hand you went to Wiki and call it fact as to substantiate Fraud with the product.  Just pick a fortune 500 Company (Note Many are Network Marketing) and you can find stuff on wiki links also.  Xango is 13 years old.  It does business in over 43 countries.  In it's first 2 years it was the 4th Network Marketing company, behind Mary Kay, Avon and others.  Check for stuff on wiki on them to.  The company is selling an actual product, that is patented.  They have sold more Juice than Frosted Flake, Dial soap, Oreo Cookie.  It's grown faster than Microsoft, Apple, Ebay...  It's in the Health and Wellness Industry.  People don't trust traditional medicine as before.  The health and Wellness industry is big business.  Just look at Green Tea, Grape Seed extract to name a view.  This product is more powerful than all of them put together. 

Mayo Clinic: 
Mayo clinic - they have specifically said this stuff doesn't do what it claims...  Where is your source.  Please let it be from the Mayo Clinic site

Here are my sources.  Independent Third party ABC news
http://www.mymangosteen.com/Healthychoice2014/media_vault.asp?v=75

That's at the beginning of the Study :Note the Largest Human Clinical Trial

Taken from the Initial results of the Study.  Which they have ordered more Juice from us but have not released all the info.  But what they do say is telling, maybe not for you. 
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/rheumatoid-arthritis/expert-answers/mangosteen/faq-20058517

The full results is carded for 2015.  Yet you say you got this info:  I took your advice and googled:  Mayo Clinic Rejects Mangosteen  Read The link
http://www.riversideonline.com/health_reference/Arthritis/AN01197.cfm

You know if you would apply your own advice and visit the very credible 3rd party sites I sent you initially, you would have all the info.  Instead of just typing in Xango Scam. 

Here is where you crossed the line brother.  I've been apart of this community for a long time and for you to imply that I'm gonna hustle people here is not acceptable.  I offered you the opportunity to skype and get the info.  Nah.  Winning an argument on the internet is so important to you that you would bring my integrity into question.   This company has a warehouse in T&T distributing all over the country.  At one time there were people making 10K US plus a month part -time.   But according to your astute insight and research, I'm either a fool or a crook.  So is Charlie Sheen, Drew Brees and a host of other celebs that have it as part rehabilitation or treatment routine.  Nah, but you carry on. 

If anyone reading this thread would like to learn more, I can get you the info.  It can be an addition to any medical treatment you are a dealing with right now or if you are willing and able to do this business, I'll be happy to show you how to make some extra money.  Presently, I'm the lead guy on revitalizing the T&T market.  With Green brand new products, Clean Energy drinks etc.  If you know people in T&T or USA that love working with people and might do well.  Let's talk. 

[Tiresais]

It appears I am right in questioning your motives - you have a clear benefit to accepting Xango and a clear loss in rejecting it. Given this, we clearly can't take your word for it, and your links don't help

Your first link is an ABC interview about clinical trials they are going to do, not trials actually done. Note "Anecdotal human trials" - the inappropriateness is right there in his own words. The website "MyMangosteen" is a site selling Xango merchandise quite prominantly, clearly not an unbiased source of information.

Your second link AGAIN has a clear sceptical approach "It might" are the first words - clearly the author believes that the evidence isn't conclusive or reliable enough to put their name to it yet. Indeed this is the very proof that the Mayo Clinic does not believe (i.e. there is no scientific evidence) that it can help arthritis or cancer, or indeed any other condition.

Your third link is the same as the second.

Again I ask you to show any peer-reviewed scientific evidence, with clinical trials, that show the health benefits you're pushing - they don't exist. This internet argument has no value to me except preventing members of this website from wasting money on the new 'fad' that has no evidence to back up it's heady claims or inflated price.

Instead, we find that the FDA has warned the company on making false health claims before like here, the American Cancer Society says there that there is no evidence currently that it has any positive impact on cancer. Indeed recently Italy fined the company for making false claims about its effectiveness

In short - you're selling a product that has a chequered history at best. It has been at multiple times been accused of fraudulent claims in health, and it has had 13 years to prove clinically it has a positive impact. So far, there is no clinical evidence of a positive health impact. Let me be clear - I'm not saying you're a fraudster, absolutely no reason to believe that, but I think you're selling a product that maybe you're not aware is at least suspicious, and that the claims they are making are not currently backed up with any hard science or evidence.

[Preacher]

So the links you post are proof that the Mangosteen isn't backed up by hard evidence?  At least its enough "evidence" for Mayo to say "It Might".  It's a waste of my time with you cause all you really doing is dodging, fringing and at the end of your supposed evidence, you doubling down with a bunch big statements the you can't substantiate.  Carry on. 

[Tiresais]

So the links you post are proof that the Mangosteen isn't backed up by hard evidence?  At least its enough "evidence" for Mayo to say "It Might".  It's a waste of my time with you cause all you really doing is dodging, fringing and at the end of your supposed evidence, you doubling down with a bunch big statements the you can't substantiate.  Carry on.

Well I'm sorry you see it that way - I addressed every one of your points. Anyway the argument appears to have met an end - until it has clinical trials to back it up the health claims are simply unsubstantiated, something your own links point out.

[Preacher]

No need to patronize me.   Oh you sorry?  The only thing you sorry bout is that you can't be more condescending.   Where is the article from the Mayo Clinic that rejects the claims of Mangosteen, Mangosteen Juice or Xango?  Since you answered all my questions, it should be easy to find.  But most likely you'll just repeat yourself with the same rhetoric..... Unsubstantiated.  No science...no evidence.  lol 

[Tiresais]

My apologies I didn't mean to be condescending.

The onus is not to disprove health claims by Xango, just as you are not required to disprove the invisible, intangible Pink elephant I assert follows you around constantly - if you propose something you are required to fulfil the burden of proof. If Xango wish to claim it has health benefits then it is incumbent on them to prove it, not on anyone else to disprove it.

So your question is backwards - where's the evidence of health benefits from Xango/Mangosteen juice?

[Preacher]

You don't want proof.  You just want to be an imps.  Which you've convinced me of.   You said big and bold like you knew what you were talking about.  "Mayo clinic - they have specifically said this stuff doesn't do what it claims... "    Then you gone back in your own response and delete it.  It says what kind or person you are.  Now you talking bout pink elephant.  But I understand that's the best you can do when you have no evidence rebuttal.   So again you claimed it.  "They have specifically said this stuff doesn't do what it claims..."  Where is the link?

This is you again.
In short - you're selling a product that has a chequered history at best. It has been at multiple times been accused of fraudulent claims in health, and it has had 13 years to prove clinically it has a positive impact. So far, there is no clinical evidence of a positive health impact.
 

Ey but in case you missed it 200 times in my post. 
Here a link from Mayo Clinic.   
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/rheumatoid-arthritis/expert-answers/mangosteen/faq-20058517

Oh and here's another trove of research articles
Pubmed.gov
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
Just enter Mangosteen. 

[Tiresais]

You don't want proof.  You just want to be an imps.  Which you've convinced me of.   You said big and bold like you knew what you were talking about.  "Mayo clinic - they have specifically said this stuff doesn't do what it claims... "    Then you gone back in your own response and delete it.  It says what kind or person you are.  Now you talking bout pink elephant.  But I understand that's the best you can do when you have no evidence rebuttal.   So again you claimed it.  "They have specifically said this stuff doesn't do what it claims..."  Where is the link?

This is you again.
In short - you're selling a product that has a chequered history at best. It has been at multiple times been accused of fraudulent claims in health, and it has had 13 years to prove clinically it has a positive impact. So far, there is no clinical evidence of a positive health impact.
 

Ey but in case you missed it 200 times in my post. 
Here a link from Mayo Clinic.   
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/rheumatoid-arthritis/expert-answers/mangosteen/faq-20058517

Oh and here's another trove of research articles
Pubmed.gov
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
Just enter Mangosteen.

Firstly I haven't deleted any posts, so not sure why you think that.

Secondly, as I've pointed out twice now, the link you give SPECIFICALLY SAYS THERE IS NO CLINICAL PROOF OF THIS. You are being intellectually dishonest, or simply do not understand the difference between "it might have an effect" and "we have proven there is a health benefit", the former has a much lower burden of proof, and is not a reliable indication of its effects, hence why the FDA threatened Xango with action over its bogus health claims. From the link;

But the studies that found this reduction in CRP were not conducted with people who have arthritis. And not everybody who has arthritis has an elevation in CRP. So at this point, while the data appears promising, it is still too early to say for sure what role mangosteen juice has in treating arthritis symptoms.

Your own article points out that Mangosteen juice is still in the testing phase, that it had benefits in animals but the effect on humans is simply not proven yet. Not sure how else I can state this - do you understand the scientific method and what clinical trials are?

Your second link simply returns all scientific papers on Mangosteen juice, which doesn't help you really. Some of them talk about extracting specific elements from Mangosteen, some talk about its effects on cancer cells removed from the host, but none talk about human clinical trials, which are very different to laborotory condition effects. Again, without human clinical trials you simply cannot claim health benefits and be intellectually honest, because you cannot know what the health benefits are without testing.

In short - I want the type of proof that conclusively proves health benefits, not anecdotal evidence or incomplete trials. I want the same standard of proof I expect of other drugs and foods that claim health benefits and the ability to ease symptoms or cure/help cure diseases. Possibly the confusion comes because you don't understand what clinical trials are, and the process of the scientific method. More likely, you have a combination of confirmation bias and a vested interest in the health claims of the product you are selling. That's not to say you're being dishonest, but that you simply cannot be unbiased in this matter.

[Preacher]

Right. Moving on.  For those of you interested.  Doing presentations this week.  Just link me if you got skype and we'll set it up. 

Good presentation from a Registered Nurse
http://www.mymangosteen.com/Healthychoice2014/media_vault.asp?v=163

More info to come

God Bless

[pecan]

Preacher and Tireais

thanks for the various links.

I found the link to the American Cancer Society (provided by Tireais) to be insightful.

"This product [Mangosteen Juice] is sold as a dietary supplement in the United States. Unlike drugs (which must be tested before being allowed to be sold), the companies that make supplements are not required to prove to the Food and Drug Administration that their supplements are safe or effective, as long as they don't claim the supplements can prevent, treat, or cure any specific disease"

So like any other dietary supplements, the consumer has to satisfy him/herself that the product is beneficial. Some people have higher standards i,e. published results of repeatable clinical trials; others are happy with anecdotal or indirect evidence. Take your pick and proceed accordingly. 

On a personal level, I take supplements that contain Omega-3 fatty acids - do they help? I really don't know but anecdotally, the knee joint pains have subsided.  On the other hand, I also backed off on the intensity level when I run.

The main issue I have with products distributed through MLM approaches is that the retail price of the product, in most cases, bloated.  So while the mangosteen juice may be rich with anti-oxidants, there are many other foods that can contribute to a diet rich in anti-oxidants - maybe at a lower cost.

ANTIOXIDANT RANKINGS OF FOODS
http://www.drjeffsoftware.com/FP/ORAC.txt

As measured by "ORAC" levels - Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (most commonly used)
=============================
Food          juice
     ORAC units per 100g
----------
Ecklonia cava   836,800  ("Seanol"-claimed)
Cloves      314,446
Cinnamon   267,536
Blueberry*      240,000 <*other source: ref. chart>
Oregano(dried)   200,129
Turmeric   159,277
Strawberry*     154,000 <*other source>
Spinach*   126,000 <*other source>
Acai      102,700
Alfalfa sprouts  93,000 <*other source>
Broccoli    89,000 <*other source>
Cocoa(dried)    80,933
Resveratrol    79,100
Cumin(seed)    76,800
Maqui berry(dry) 75,000  40,000
Oranges*    75,000 <*other source>
Seabuckthorn    70,000
Basil(dried)    67,553
Kiwi*       60,200 <*other source>
Mangosteen    57,623 (claimed)
Curry(powder)    48,504
Chocolate(bake)    45,000 (avg., cf. cocoa)
Sage       32,004
Mustard(seed)    29,257
Ginger(ground)    28,811
Black pepper    27,618
Rice bran    24,287
Chili(powder)    23,636
Chocolate(dark)  20,823 (cf. above)
Flax(hull)    19,600
Pecans       17,940
Paprika       17,919
Aronia/Chokeberry 16,062
Blk Raspberry    16,000
Ginger root    14,840
Elderberry    14,697
Peppermint    13,978
Oregano(fresh)    13,970 (cf. above)
Walnuts       13,541
Blueberry - wild  9,621 -cultivated 4,669


Hmmm ..  100g of pecan has a rating of 17,940. The rating for mangosteen is claimed to be 57,623. Only 3x more than pecan. So pecan not so bad after all.

My diet is rich in broccoli and spinach (green super foods). Both have higher ORAC ratings than mangosteen and are both readily available at the local grocery (where I live) at reasonable prices.

[Preacher]

The Mangosteen is an anti-oxidant yes.  But no where in any of these post did I ever claim that anti-oxidation was the key purpose of the fruit.  The fruit is also a good antihistamine but no where did I ever imply that this was it's claim to fame.  It's claim to fame is it's powerful anti-inflammation properties.  The compound in the fruit is called Xanthones.  The fruit has the most Xanthones found in nature.  As for evidence, I've clearly showed the research that agrees that the xanthones in the mangosteen have been studied and documented.  I've offer credible 3rd party independent research.  Any objective individual can find the info anywhere.  You didn't find all the links I posted insightful?    But if you don't want to see it you wouldn't.  Do your own research, if you find that Spinach and Broccoli are better anti-inflammatory I would love to see the numbers.   There are no such numbers.  Dr. Oz called Mangosteen a super food for a reason.  http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/5-superfoods-eat-now    And there is a reason that Mayo Clinic goes on record regarding Mangosteen reducing inflammation and says "It might".   If you have a disease and the doctor is prescribing drug treatment, they never ever guarantee that it would work.  They say things like "there's a good chance or It might/could."  In addition they point to the other people whom the treatment have helped.   However, regarding the Fruit you want someone to say, "It cures this."  That's a higher standard than drug prescription.  If you will simply listen to the info in the video you can cross reference it anywhere. 

[Tiresais]

You are again totally not understanding medical clinical trials. "It might" is not scientific evidence and is DEFINITELY NOT equivalent to a doctor prescribing medicines that have a proven track record of curing disease. Again you are (dishonestly) picking out two words from the whole document which specifically says that more research is needed and that there's no conclusive proof. Given your persistent intellectual dishonesty, it's clear that you're peddling a product without care as to whether it does what it claims. Shame.

[pecan]

Yes, I got side-tracked on the anti-oxidant topic.  Two reasons

1) Early in this thread, you posted that "there really only two causes to disease, Free Radicals and Inflammation., and free radical suggests anti-oxidants

2) The link from Tireais to the American Cancer Society said that "Mangosteeen ... is touted for its antioxidants, especially xanthones, a type of chemical in certain plantsweas.

Yeah, so I focused on anti-oxidants.   

With regards to the Mayo Clinic and the Anti-inflammatory properties of Mangosteen.  here are some quotes from the MD who wrote the article that you quote, specifically

"It's an exciting hypothesis because there's some plausible data to suggest that it might work" ... "Until we do the study, though, it's just that - a hypothesis." See the highlighted box in the image below.

The study has not been completed but Mangosteen is on the list of Research Projects

    Mangosteen: Anti-inflammatory effects and Atrial Fibrilation.
    Status: Open Fall 2008





So Mangosteen is on the list of all those other "super foods' that can cure a variety of ailments.

I am biased .. I would rather wait until an FDA approved xanthone extract is available than spend a lot of money on a product, that might be beneficial, at an inflated price (I am assuming the price is inflated as with most MLM distribution networks)

[Preacher]

Pecan I can respect that   

A lot of people though simply don't have the time to wait for such a drug.  Now there is a powerful anti-inflammatory in drug form.  It called Corticosteroids.  Very powerful, but it messes with your immune system in a major way.  So for many many people, they don't want that.  So they'll take a educated chance on a food or mix the juice with there therapy.  The number 3 cause of death in America is Medical -malpractice: From simple mistakes, wrong diagnosis and reactions to drugs.    So you understand there's a concern with the establishment and people are seeking natural remedies, of which the Mangosteen Fruit sold by Xango is one of them.   As for the price being $120US for 4 bottles.  When you get brain cancer or breast cancer it don't seem expensive.  And there are many documented cases of the juice reversing the masses.  My response is simply don't get sick because I guarantee you'll be spending more than that.   

[Preacher]

Saddened by that Carter's passing.  Every time I bring up Xango and the health benefits somebody always quick to try to minimize or undermine the truth.  Inflammation is the cat in the gutter. Go to your Doctor and demand a CRP score (C-Reactive Protein).   This will tell you the level of inflammation in your body.  If it is high you can get anything if you don't already have something.  Your Doc may fight you on it because there's no drug for inflammation but you can try the Juice for 30 days and watch what will happen to that CRP score.  Good luck.