Jump to content

Talk:XanGo/Archives/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Entry, redirect, disambiguation

I'm not sure if this company deserves an encyclopedia entry. If you look through the page history, it was created out of a redirect to Shango. If this page does stay, someone needs to create a disambiguation page for Shango and XanGo, LLC. ---Bennie Noakes 19:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it a scam?

If it's MLM, it's probably a scam. If it's a "health drink", it's probably a scam. However, those are my personal opinions. I can't write them into the article. We need quotes from reliable sources saying that it's a scam. That means a reference to a page in a published book or article, or a link to the exact page on a website. Anon, you can't just pull a quote from www.chetday.com; you need to give a link, which you do by copying the URL and putting single brackets around it. Furthermore, chetday.com wouldn't be considered a reliable source, I think -- anything touting ancient health secrets, with headlines like "blast the sludge out of your colon", is well into kook territory.

However, a cite from a reputable magazine or newspaper would make the grade. Zora 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's suprising to find "scam" and "scheme" throughout these discussions. Avon is the largest cosmetic company in the world, the runner-up is Mary Kay. The company that controls over 50% of the aloe vera market is Forever Living, all of which are MLM companies, "scams" and "Schemes" This is the first time I've been to this site and I'm in disbalief at the uneducated, biased and thoughtless entries in these discussions and laugh at the idea of this site or at least this discussion/topic ever being seen as anything less than pathetic.

MarketWatch columnist and podcaster Chuck Jaffe named XanGo his "Stupid Investment of the Week" for August 30, 2007. Title: "XanGo may be healthy, but it's not a juicy business proposition" [1] 85.0.177.215 08:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried again

I really need to make an account here. . . anyways, I tried again to edit the article. I'm getting better and I hope this time it sticks. I tried to be unbiased in my edit, thanks for being forceful yet helpful Zora.

I was just really eager to blow the lid on xango initially, after people were trying to pitch the stuff to my family and relatives. They use phoney testimonials about how xango cured their cancer and such to sell the product for $30 a bottle in what I consider a pyramid scheme. I really just want people looking for information about XanGo to see this article and to get the idea that maybe these medical claims may not be completely true and to do alittle more research on the juice before they spend their money on snake oil.

I rewrote, being a copyeditor type. Now that everything said is atributed to Corporate Narc, which does seem to be a reliable source, I think we've got a defensible section. I understand your concern about relatives being scammed. You might also be interested in this link -- which I can't add to the article, but sure is interesting [1]. Zora 18:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou - Anon

Lessens for a newbie.
I hope this helps the discussion here and those that are new. I am new user on this amazing site. The chat between Zora and myself was a learning experience for me. What did I learn. I learned that this wikipedia is for facts. Support your facts with legitmate external sites. If you want to add a link.. this is the page to discuss it FIRST. Let a member of the online community help you. It is alway best to talk about it here with in the discussion board if in doubt. Don't take any thing personal. The online community is all volunteers. [user: Canuk72 January 3, 2007 9:18am EST]

Canuk, I moved your links to the sentence re patent and appeal. The summaries you appended to the links were argumentative, trying to support the patent claim. My edit summary had a thinko -- I meant to say "without" and it came out "with". Zora 19:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zora, I think this is the way to reply with you. I just signed up today Dec 26. I had to smile that you have been accused of being a Canadian... its not all that bad! I understand your point regarding the links may come across as argumentative but I disagree. All they are is legitimate links about the patent problems XanGo has had. [User:Canuk72 15:09 EST Dec 26 '2006

Canuk, anyone can apply for a patent. Many thousands of complete kooks do. Applying and being turned down is no sign of validity. If it's been turned down once, is the appeal going to be successful? I doubt it. I can't find data on appeals of patents not granted -- there's a lot more info on appeals against "improperly" granted patents -- but I suspect that it's going to be hard to claim originality on a process of turning a fruit into a juice. Humans have been doing that for many thousands of years. There are other mangosteen juices. Zora 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora, Why are the links that I put under reference part of the main part of the article? I am new to this site, but are the links not reference links for the XanGo article? Is there a particular format that needs to be followed? Thanks. [Canuk72 Dec 27 9pm EST]

I moved the links so that they would still be there, as references for the sentence re the patent claim. However, they now don't have descriptions. I thought the descriptions of the references were argumentative. I hope that you will accept this compromise. Zora 01:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The explanation is much appreciated. If I wish to write to you do I leave it here? I posted on your discussion board 12. You can delete it if I put it in the wrong place. Initially, I honestly felt a little provoked. Now I'm just grateful for helping me out. Now that I think about it, the links fit nicely into the main article since it is related to the subject matter. [Canuk72 Dec 27 9:38pm EST]

Well, usually I post on your talk page and then you post on mine, which splits up the discussion. It's not the best way to do it, but it's the way things are done here. It might have been better if we'd had this discussion on the article talk page, but I wasn't sure that you would see anything there, being new and all. It does take a while to get the hang of this place. I hope that now you're here you'll investigate some areas where you might have special knowledge (as opposed to opinions, which are already in over-supply here ;)). Local history, movies that don't have articles yet, that sort of thing. Or perhaps you're a whiz at Topology -- I dunno! Zora 03:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated edits from anons in Lehi, Utah

Someone tracking down the IPs that have been either removing criticism of XanGo, or trying to insert puffery. They're from Lehi, Utah. Home of XanGo. Big surprise, eh? Zora 02:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Figures. . .

-some dude

MLS Sponsorship

Er, the MLS sponsorship deal has been picked up by cnn.com and others, so I think it qualifies. I'm not sure every sponsorship agreement by every company belongs in an encyclopedia, but this seems salient, given it's the first front-of-the-shirt deal in the MLS. I hardly think noting that a sponsorship deal was signed is puffery, and savvy observers might think the opposite. [2] - Aagtbdfoua 23:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I've reverted to include the MLS deal again. This'll be my last revert before requesting an RfC. In addition to what I said above, it's important to include as it establishes notability of the subject, which is pretty thin without this reference. I also have some concerns that any non-negative coverage of this company from reliable sources is quickly reverted, while references to non-notable never-heard-of-them sources like Corporate Narc and chetday.com (note the redlinks) get whole paragraphs. So I'll slap a npov tag on this as well. - Aagtbdfoua 02:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Advertising isn't news. The company bought some publicity -- so? Zora 06:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say buying the first front of shirt sponsorship in a major sports league is news. You may not agree that MLS is a major sports league, but it is the top division of soccer in the U.S. Mentioning that the company signed a large sponsorship deal (by MLS standards) with a major sports league shows that the company is at least somewhat significant. --Lincolan

Agreed, and that the NY Times and CNN decided to report on the deal would seem to validate its importance. It deserves at least a mention. Recury 15:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering XanGo was the FIRST company EVER to advertise on ANY major leagues uniform in the U.S. I think it's definatley important to note in an encyclopedia.

The sponsorship is more commonly known as a "jersey sponsorship", not a "corporate sponsorship", considering KFC and ADIDAS are also sponsors of RSL, notably though, not the jersey sponsor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.28.64 (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral about this article.

Zora is clearly biased against MLM and natural remedies. The mangosteen has been better researched than the aloe vera plant and has been proven to have some terrific health benefits. Simply go to www.pubmed.com and look up mangosteen and xanthones. Corporate Narc is nothing but another anti MLM site, of which there are many. It's only real objection to XanGo is that it has a disclaimer on it's website, but never mentions the fact that the FDA requires all natural health products to have a similar disclaimer. The fact is there is a great deal of science and proof behind this product. This has nothing to do with advertising, but with fact. Pfizer has hired one of the top experts on the mangosteen to research drug possibilities for them.

—The preceding jspugh comment was added by Jspugh (talk • contribs) 02:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Considering that this user has few edits other than XanGo related ones, I think it likely that he is connected with the company in some way.
There's not much controversy about MLM -- if you're doing it, you think it's great, and everyone else regards MLMs as nuisances and scams, flirting with being Ponzi schemes. I have no prejudice against natural remedies if they've been shown to work. I eat a hippie-ish health food diet myself. It's just that there's no evidence that $30/bottle XanGo is any more effective than $5/bottle mangosteen juice imported from Thailand and sold at discount stores. NO EVIDENCE. Zora 05:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)



Yes, I am a Xango distributor, but that has nothing to do with the fact that this is not a neutral article. Your red herring statement that there is no evidence that a $5 bottle of mangosteen juice is no less effective than a $30 bottle of Xango. (Actually, there is a great deal of evidence, considering the $5 bottle is probably only about 10% reconstituted mangosteen, wile Xango is the ONLY product that uses the whole fruit). The issue here is whether this is a neutral article. I draw your attention to the article on noni juice, which makes another health juice, and Vemma, which markets another mangosteen juice. Both of these are completely neutral articles While there is a great deal that could be said about Vemma and their unethical business practices, Wikipedia is not the place for them. It's also not the place for attacks on Xango. The fact is, Xango is now the fastest growing health and wellness company in history, and it appears it will be the most successful natural health product (yes, even more than aloe vera juice) and that makes them a target.

Re: MLM, Zora clearly has no clue as to what MLM really is. MLM is now considered a completely legitimate and respectable industry. Do you even know what a Ponzi scheme is? MLM is creating more new millionaires than every other industry combines. Really, do you think Avon is a scam?

JSPUGH

Yes, MLM schemes are a scam and no one I know regards them as legitimate and respectable. Yes, I know what a Ponzi scheme is. If there's marketing in the mangosteen and noni articles, I'll remove it. As for your admission that you're a distributor, Mr. Pugh -- well, that takes you out of the running for commenting on the article. You have a conflict of interest.

WP articles do strive for neutrality, and in this case it meant not allowing another editor to insert personal opinion arguments as fact. I kept after him until he could come up with quotes. All the criticisms of XanGo are now quotes from reputable sources, which a reader can choose to accept or reject. If any reputable scientist unconnected with XanGo were to study the stuff and report on it, we'd include that report too, whether it was praise or criticism. However, so far as I know, all XanGo has ever put forward are claims, not third-party studies. Zora 23:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Zora, I've just commented in the "red flag" section of these discussions, please review that as well. I've been researching XanGo as a possible business venture and have found there IS a large number of third-party peer review studies. You've been told this and directed to it but you refuse to recognize it. Please go to www.pubmed.com this is a respected, internationally recognized public accesible site. When there, type in xanthones, mangosteen, and/or garcinia mangostana into the pubmed search engine. This sience, like stated before, is in it's infancy but as stated in nearly every article by the scientists themselves the results of their studies were promising and anticipation of new "drugs" is inevitable and sometimes disbelief a drug doesn't exist already is clearly stated in the articles. I found this information while conducting my own research on the mangosteen fruit and XanGo, that is the same way I found this site, by doing my own research, I encourage you to do the same. This science is good third party peer reviewed science, most of which was done many years before mangosteen came to market. Again, the science is early, all similar studies (health products) are done STARTING with "test tubes" then if promising, animal studies are done which there are a number of on pubmed all of which are as promising or more promising than the "test tube" studies. After this are clinical trials but they cost way to much and arn't demanded by the FDA for fruits therefore they arn't done and won't be until the drug companies get involved. Some people need relief now and when there trusted family member or friend tells them this worked for them then they try, that's there right not only to make the choice to try it but to share their results. I would trust my brother before I trusted a scientist. It's also peoples right to be skeptical, not trust their brother and to live with their poor health until, if ever, clinical trials are made public. God Bless

Neutrality

That the criticism of the product is sourced now is great, but there is now a serious problem with undue weight. 4/5ths of the article is about how their product is crap and a scam and that is unacceptable. I also question whether "Corporate Narc" is a reliable source, although the other two seem OK. Recury 15:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we now have the quote from Dr. Templeman, in favor of XanGo, and a much better quote from the Berkeley Wellness Newsletter. If you want to remove the Corporate Narc stuff, that's fine with me. Or we can just leave it as an external link. Zora 02:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

Zora, the issue here is YOUR neutrality. YOU have erased every positive quote placed in the article (e.g. quotes from Dr. Templeman, a leading 3rd party expert on the mangosteen were deleted). On the other hand YOU have included/allowed quotes from unreliable sources such as "Corporate Narc" You should recuse yourself from this article and request another, less biased, editor take over. As I have stated before, there are over 1000 3rd party studies at www.pubmed.com. You can also find info from Dr. Templeman at www.mangosteenmd.com.

jspugh

Dr. Templeman lives in Utah (near XanGo headquarters in Lehi, hmmmm) and sells mangosteen products on his website, which is full of glowing testimonials to the mangosteen. This is NOT respectable peer-reviewed research. He is not a third-party; he's trying to promote and profit from mangosteen juice. The Pubmed studies seem to have been done by Thai researchers and study mangosteen extracts in the test tube. They are hidden behind pay walls, and I'm not going to pay $25 to see an article. However, it's clear that they involve mangosteen extracts, not Xango, and that they don't involve actual clinical studies. You can't claim those as proof that your specific product has specific health effects.
Dr Templeman is the Father-in-law of David Morton, brother of two of the XanGo co-founders (Joe & Gordon Morton). Nepotism is relative...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.199.60.181 (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Pubmed did lead me to the following article, in the UC Berkeley Wellness newsletter, which is as respectable as they get. [4] It mentions XanGo by name as a scam. Thanks for leading me to that. I'm certainly going to put it in the article.
I don't think you understand the difference between "having opinions" and "being fair". I can't just write, "XanGo is a scam" -- even though I think it is -- because that's personal opinion. However, if I can find reputable sources that voice that opinion, I can add quotes. Supporters of XanGo can also put up quotes. We now have two sections, one for supporters and one for critics. It's going to be up to the readers to decide which quotes are more persuasive and which sources are more authoritative. That's fair. Zora 02:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
That is satisfactory, although you are mistaken regarding Dr. Templeman, and he DOES NOT sell juice on his website, only books and CD's. This is because he is not a Xango distributor or employee of Xango. Zora, you are a disgrace to WK. You wouldn't know neutral if it bit you. It is editors like you the WK has become such a joke. (jspugh)
Lots of other people think I'm evil. See my userpage. Zora 07:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you're evil, just unethical. The fact is, nothing past the first section should be included in this article, just as it was originally created, almost two years ago, by me. The supporters section and the criticism sections should be gone. This is an encyclopedia, and the articles should be neutral. Just look at the articles for Vemma and Noni, which make similar products. Those articles are clean. You've allowed your dislike and ignorance of MLM to control your actions. (JSPUGH)

You very much misunderstand Wikipedia and how neutrality works. Read WP:NPOV. I'll clean up the other articles when I get a round tuit. I'm watching 700 articles and I'm frazzled. Zora 10:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

He is right, there is still an undue weight problem with the article as is. It would be like if the article on the USA had 5 sentences in the lead describing the country and the people who live in it and then 5 paragraphs from people for the Iraq War and then 5 paragraphs from people against it. The article should address the following topics in roughly equal measure: 1) Xango is a company that sells drinks made of mangosteen 2) Some people say that it has health benefits 3) Some people say it has absolutely no health benefits and 4) They are known for being a sponsor of the MLS team. Recury 14:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I endorse this proposed structure not because I think every article should be 50/50 but this ratio seems to reflect the coverage in secondary sources at this time. I think a well-written article based on the reliable secondary sources could and probably consist of 4-8 sentences. The secondary sources should be summarized or just cited rather than giving full block quotes. Templeman, chetday.com, and Corporate Narc should all be dropped. cancer.org, Mayo clinic, Berkeley newsletter, and cnnsi/nytimes cite should all stay. The company's website can be quoted briefly to reflect the company's claims but these should be clearly attributed to the company and not presented as truth. Discussion of the patent application should be dropped, unless I've missed its coverage in a secondary source somewhere. - Aagtbdfoua 04:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No Zora, you were engaging in POV pushing. You went out of your way to find negative information and then posted it without even checking to see if it was accurate. You also worded positive statements about the product in a way that they were minimized. You behaved in a highly unethical manner. I have read the rules and you violated them. (jspugh)

Opinions are given space according to their notability; space isn't divided up equally between them. The number of people who think MLMs selling fruit drinks are scams is much much larger (and backed by bigger guns, like the FDA, Blue Shield of California, and UC Berkeley) than the number of people selling and using "nutriceuticals". Creationists don't get as much space as evolutionary biologists at Evolution; flat-earthers don't even get a link at Earth.

It's perfectly fine to look for negative information, as long as the info I post is from a reliable source. As for me being unethical -- well, I think it's ethical to give people the info that they need to make an informed decision. (Such as buying juice, if they think it will do them some good, at a price closer to the real cost of production, like the $5.95 I pay for the bottles of pomegranate juice I use in cooking.) Some editors here would like to have info expunged. That's called censorship, and it gets short shrift here on WP.

If you want to try to get me censured, you need to file a Request for Comment. See WP:RFC.

BTW, I looked at Noni and agree that it has been taken over by MLM marketers. It needs work. As for the Vemma page -- it isn't being used to hype the company, so it hasn't attracted negative comment. (Although negative comment would be appropriate if some editor felt inclined to do so, and had quotes from reliable sources.) The MLM category at the bottom is probably sufficient warning.

The harder you push to use WP for marketing, the harder the rest of us will push back. Zora 04:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Dearie, I haven't tried to use WP for marketing. I have made it clear I think the article should end after the first paragraph. But I simply will not let you, out of ignorance, mean-spiritedness, or whatever, use WP to make unfounded comments about a reputable company. The point here is to be neutral. I am not the only one that feels there is a neutrality issue. So, this article can either be cleaned up, or we can make it 10 pages long. There is a huge amount of science behind this product and plenty of postive inforamtion I can post. Whereas, all the info you have posted is pretty dubious. BTW, I think pomegranate juice is great, but it's a little expensive for my taste. A $6 bottle doesn't last long, while a $25 bottle of Xango will last a month, considering the serving size is one ounce per day. I haven't had a cold in almost 2 years, my mother no longer has to take her arthritis medication, and since her acid reflux has almost completely gone away, the doctors no longer tell her she is in danger of getting esophageal cancer. She was 2 stages away from it, now she has a clean bill of health.I admit, the studies are still in their infancy, but these people have created a product that helps people. They also are giving millions to Operation Kids, whichis a wonderful charity. So, you choose, clean the article, or we can keep going on and on.

Don't call me dearie. Don't call me names, either. There's a policy called WP:CIVIL that governs interactions between editors. I'm not going to report you, as you're clearly a newbie, but I could, if you persist.

Your anecdotal observations mean nothing -- as do Dr. Templeton's -- because perceptions are so easily influenced by what you want to see. That's why the gold standard for proving clinical efficacy is a double-blind clinical trial. Some patients get placebos, some get the drug being tested, and until the results are revealed, no one knows which is which. Expectations can't influence observations and results.

XanGo is being marketed on the basis of experiments with extracts in test-tubes, and anecdote, without any clinical trials, or any proof that XanGo per se is any more effective than a juice I could make by plopping mangosteens into my blender. Charitable giving doesn't excuse previous ethical lapses. Zora 11:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I condensed the article eliminating extra information
I apologize for the dearie, but there are plenty of reasons I could report you as well, and have not decided I won't. Depends on your future actions. You are mistaken about Templeman. If you knew his history you would agree. I won't explain it, but suffice it to say, he was a renowned doctor long before Xango. His use of mangosteen in his practice led him to go into full time research. He is now one of the world's foremost experts on the mangosteen.

Xango would agree with you that you could get the same benefit from using fresh mangosteens. The problem is you can't buy them in this country. The article is acceptable as is, although Corporate Narc should go, they are extremely dubious. Dr. Moss has his issues, but since Templman remained, Moss can too. BTW, the only ethical lapses have been yours, by becooming a zealot over an issue you are completely ignorant about. Xango takes great pains to be honest and above board, by training and disciplining their distributors on a regular basis. . The research is still in its infancy, but every month brings something astounding. Now that Pfizer is on board, this will only increase. jspugh

I live in Hawai'i. Mangosteens are grown here. I gather that the growers are discussing using irradiation so that the fruit can be shipped to the mainland. Zora 05:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


I'm aware of the crop they are working on. I'm looking forward to the day I can actually try a fresh one. The problem is it takes 7-10 years for a mangosteen tree to bear fruit. The crop in Hawaii is just not large enough yet. There is a man in Puerto Rico that yielded 145 fruits last Summer and has contracted with a New York and an L.A. produce shipper to sell the fruit this year, if his crop is large enough. Because PR (and Hawaii) is part of U.S. it is legal to ship them to the mainland. In countries where mangosteens are sold they are the most expensive fruits in the market, usually $6-$8 per pound. If you want the health benefits, it is important to use the rind, that's where the xanthones are. JSPugh.03:24, 12 February 2007

Red flags

I understand the importance of keeping this article neutral. However, a friend dragged me along to an 'opportunity' meeting last night, and i think it is important to warn readers that this is a complete scam. It has all five flags of a product based pyramid scheme, as per Jon M. Taylor (from Consumer Awareness Institute)'s "Five Causal and Defining Characteristics of Product-Based Pyramid Schemes, or Recruiting MLM’s*"

  1. Each person recruited is empowered and given incentives to recruit other participants, who are empowered and motivated to recruit still other participants, etc. – in an endless chain of empowered and motivated recruiters recruiting recruiters – without regard to (de facto) market saturation.
  2. Advancement in a hierarchy of multiple levels of “distributors” is achieved by recruitment, rather than by appointment.
  3. “Pay to play” requirements are met by ongoing “incentivized purchases,” with participants the primary buyers.
  4. The MLM company pays commissions and bonuses on more “distributor” levels than are functionally justified; i.e., more than five levels. (Xango has 9 - THE KING)
  5. Company payout (in commissions, bonuses, etc.) per sale for the total of all upline participants together equals or exceeds that for the person selling the product – resulting in inadequate incentive to retail and excessive incentive to recruit.

THE KING 00:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the information you provided was completely inaccurate. The membership is not $38.50, it is $35. You are also NOT required to purchase Xango if you are a member. If you are doing this as a business, you must have $100 in personal volume to receive a check for that month. Personal volume is a standard rule in the industry. The rest of the "red flags" are just another regurgitation of the same, old anti-mlm literature prevalent on the web today. A "pyramid" is actually a scam where there is not really a product, people are basically just selling memberships. Another characteristic of a pyramid scam is that only the people on the top make any money. While there are good and bad in every industry, MLM, or Network Marketing is a legitimate opportunity and a great way to earn a residual income. There are many quality network marketing companies to choose from, and a person that is interested should do a great deal of research before they join one. It should be a product that they believe in and can get excited about. Of course, the company should be reputable as well. JSPugh 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


JSPugh, I notice that you corrected a $3.50 error in pricing, but didn't address the nine levels of distributorship argument. Calling criticism of MLM "regurgitation" isn't a rebuttal. You're inside the scheme and naturally want to defend it. The rest of us see fruit juice worth $6 being sold for $30. I have never known anyone NOT involved in an MLM scheme to defend them, and those of my friends who did get involved quit after a few months, poorer and wiser.

Someone put a copy of the FDA warning letter to XanGo at the Mangosteen article, and it should be brought over here. It is certainly relevant info. Zora 02:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


The nine levels was not worth addressing. It is a standard unilevel plan. For some anti mlm guru to decide that no plan should go over 5 levels is not worthy of response. The fact is, the post King made was completely inaccurate, based only on his faulty perceptions and memory of an opportunity meeting. Zora, your statement that nobody outside of MLM defends it is ridiculous. Nobody outside of anything defends anything. But, that's not completely true either. MLM has been praised and recommended by Donald Trump, Zig Ziglar, Robert Kiyosaki, and Anthony Robbins. Of course, now that Warren Buffett has purchased the Pampered Chef, he is IN the MLM business. It is a valid, respectable industry. The fact that your friends lost money in it notwthstanding. Most businesses fail, no matter the industry. I can tell you that if your friends either did not find the right company, or they did not work it correctly. It is all about duplication. Any reasonably intelligent person can make an above average income in this industry, if only they can be teachable and go to work.
BTW, I think you should post the FDA letter. That will give me the opportunity to post how the FDA was embarrassed by the overeager agent that sent the letter. He got his facts mixed up.
Zora, due to your unethical behavior regarding this article, you really should recuse yourself from it. You crossed the line on this one and you know it. It was never your intention to make WP better, only to find as much negative information as you could. If you recuse yourself, I would be willing to do the same. There are plenty of other editors that can handle this article. JSPugh 02:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

JSPugh, which part of the info that i added was 'completely inaccurate'? Admittedly i made a mistake on the signup fee of $3.50 - and my apologies for that, i didn't remember the exact fee from the opp. meeting so i checked with a website, who it seems are taking a cut in addition to the amount payed to xango. But yes, as per [5] it looks like its $35.

That aside, I have checked xangos official website, and while they don't seem to want to disclose much information on the web, i did find this Xango Compensation Plan, which contains no variation to the information I inserted. I'm putting the info back in the article, please explain here why it should be removed before removing again. Cheers - THE KING 14:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your biggest error is the claim that membership involves a requirement to purchase 4 bottles a month. There is no rule that any distributor has to purchase any product, and there are plenty of distributors that only purchase the product occasionally. Therefore Xango does NOT meet the five "red flags" of a pyramid scheme. I left the part of the membership fee and removed the rest. The five "red flags" also do not belong as they are of a dubious source. There are thousands of anti mlm sites and this is just another one. Read WP's article on pyramid schemes, or better yet, the FTC has an article on how to recognize pyramid. A pyramid is where there is no real product, that does not apply here. JSPugh 08:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, or when the product is just a cover for sending money up the chain. In Xango's case - could a reasonable person seriously believe that US$30 for a bottle of juice is not a cover for sending 50% of that up 9 levels of pyramid? THE KING 14:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Its the cause of doing business. Xango chose to market MLM because of the nature of the product. The cost of the product is comparable to other health products. It is $1 per serving. A bottle last almost a month. This is not a refreshment, it is a health product in juice form, instead of pill form or tincture form. Calling it a "scheme" undermines the neutrality of the article. JSPugh 08:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I will be to the first to admit that I successfully participate in the MLM industry and am researching XanGo as a possible vehicle for my continued success. I'm compelled to address your arguments of these "red flags" and more specifically the ignorant opinion that XanGo is a pyrimid. XanGo, fortunately for those who can recognize it has a brilliant compensation plan. During my research I've found this site www.learncompplan.com which offers a complete and comrehensive explanation of the XanGo compensation. I'll refrain from explaining the details and allow you the dignity of conducting your own unbiased research and comparing the details of this plan to others in the industry. In referance to the "5 level" statement I'd like to point out that XanGo's 9 level compensation plan distributes less percentage to more distributors. If you were to do the math and play with some numbers you may come to the same conclusion I have. Simply put, this allows the participant to be compensated on the efforts of far more people (10's of thousands) than a 5 level plan and offers a greater stability and security in regards to the residual income and ultimately allows someone to quite working without the threat of an orginization backslide so to speak. It may take longer to build but the outcome is far more secure and profitable. In regards to the pyrimid scheme, what is it? A pyrimid scheme, like stated before usually does not have a product. Distributors are paid a percentage of the start up fee which will cost anywhere from $5,000 to $50,000+. Even if the company has a product distributors are compensated far greater on a recruit so this is the distributors focus and rarely does the product get distributed. If a company distributed 10,000 back to it's distributors it may look something like the following. 1,000-1stlevel...2,000-2ndlevel...3,000-3rdlevel...4,000-5thlevel The FTC made it clear that 75% of paid commission must come from the purchase of product and the other 25% could come from anything else such as start up. XanGo start up is $35 which includes a kit of some sort and none of this go's back to the field, 100% of commmisions come from the purchase of product. I apologize for this large entry but feel it was appropiate being that I refuse to argue any disputes to this entry as it's accurate and some above entries needed correction. God Bless

What is the cost per bottle and can you make a reasonable markup marketing the product? Holannakata (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced statement

I notice there's an unsourced statement on the page from Dr Frederick Templeman. Since there are active editors on this page, i hereby advise that if there isn't a source in 48hrs, I will be removing the offending statement. If this is extra vires please let me know with a reference to the relevant policy doc. Cheers, THE KING 15:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

King, I believe you are acting in good faith, but this stuff has already been run into the ground over the last week. When I first started editing this article it was nothing but an anti-mlm, anti-Xango article. I had to hold Zora's feet to the fire to make this anywhere near neutral. It is still far from neutral, considering some of the dubious quotes contained. Corporate Narc has no business being here, and there are problems with anything Dr. Moss has to say. I put the source for the quote of Dr. Templeman, but let's try to remember the point here is to have an encyclopedia. That means this site is not for marketing Xango, nor is it for warning people off of Xango. We have a pretty good compromise. Not perfect, but pretty good. JSPugh 10:33 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Compromise accepted. Thanks for reminding me - we are trying to write an encyclopedia here. Cheers, THE KING 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleared it up, this is an encyclopedia not a debate

How do you like it? If the reader of this article wanted entire opinions, he/she can read the supplied links, otherwise large block quotes have no place in the article. I tried to represent both opinions in a small form summed them up, while providing links for those that want to read more. I think this article is much better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VaughnN (talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I was going to remove the block quotes eventually. Devoting that much space to that discussion is POV and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Recury 17:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The article is much clearer now, thanks Vaughn. Btw Recury - we are trying to write an encyclopedia, you're right. Thanks for keeping me on track. THE KING 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Great job!! This article now has a clear, neutral POV. I may add an external link containing Dr. Templeman's response to Dr. Moss. Since Moss discusses Templeman in the article linked, that's only fair. Thanks to the honest people that did this. Jspugh 21:19 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr.Moss's article should not be added, this man makes money directly off of the sucess of Mangosteen, and ultimatly XanGo. Therefore he is increadibly biased in his opinions, and his stances towards critics. In the first paragraph, he says that people who are against XanGo dislike it because it is new, and "threatens established intrests" which is entirely untrue, and a disgusting blanket statement. I could go on about the article, but you get the idea.

Actually, the article was from Dr. Templeman. He is one of the world's foremost experts on mangosteen and is discussed and (mis)quoted in the article of Dr. Moss that was quoted from and linked to in the article. I removed it Dr. Moss's article as he is not reliable either. He is biased against any natural remedies, and particularly those marketed by network marketing. Jspugh 22:19 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see Dr.Moss's quote remain, as it sums up the beliefs of those against XanGo, but I'll go ahead and leave it like that. I'd be glad if you could find another quote that can sum it up well like Moss did. I don't really have the time right now.

I'm sure there is a better source, but it should be linked to, not quoted. I agree, Dr. Moss does sum up the beliefs of those against Xango, mainly because he, like they, never really seriously looked at the product. He misquotes Templeman, and get his information from a website that he mistakenly believes is a corporate website, but is not. The website that his article came from www.chetday.com has another article by him on Goji juice that pretty much says the same thing as his article on Xango. Jspugh 22:56 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing criticism

The XanGo distributors have been removing criticism from the mainstream sources (such as UC Berkeley, Mayo Clinic) and leaving only a quote from much less reputable site. You don't want people to know, do you? Zora 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


It was not a Xango distributor that removed the criticism and the article you mentioned is still linked. You can't stand that this is no longer your private playground, huh? Jspugh 03:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Space and balance (undue weight)

Recury wrote The article should address the following topics in roughly equal measure: 1) Xango is a company that sells drinks made of mangosteen 2) Some people say that it has health benefits 3) Some people say it has absolutely no health benefits and 4) They are known for being a sponsor of the MLS team.

WP:NPOV in no way requires "equal" weight to be given to positive and neutral views. And sponsorship of a sports team is clearly much less important than health information or information about distributorships. Per Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, The amount of space [a topic] deserve[s] depends on [its] importance and how many interesting things can be said about [it].

Futher, the way to get proper balance is not to remove valid, sourced information; it is to add interesting, relevant information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I strongly object to the reinsertion of the block quotes. Although I cannot find an explicit style guideline regarding their use, block quotes should be used sparingly. In the absense of explicit style guidelines, look at some featured articles. Even articles about contentious issues such as the Second Crusade or Roe v. Wade have only a small proportion of the text as block quotes. This article seems to be over 50% block quote. - Aagtbdfoua 04:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

One an also argue that anybody who sells XanGo, buys XanGo, or has been screwed by MLM's in the past has no business editing this article, as per WP:COI -- TomXP411[Talk] 03:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


Saying that a distributor can't edit this page is like saying that since I am a minister, I can't write anything about Christianity or Jesus Christ. The distributors are the only ones that know anything about the product. Unfortunately, some get carried away and go way too far. By the same token, some anti-mlm folks are going too far as well. This is an encyclopedia. It needs to be neutral and just tell what the company is. There are plenty of links that people can get more info if they want. Jspugh 03:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this last statement. By disqualifying a XanGo distributor for being biased pro Xango, one can argue that those whom do NOT take the product or are not involved with the company are biased ANTI-Xango. The arguments and wording should be taken on an individual basis and in good faith. We should report the facts of what is out there.
I also agree with the statement about the nuts on both sides. There are some crazy people in MLM whom are fanatics. For those whom have had a bad experience with them I am sorry you did. But by slamming the entire industry or everyone who also participates is the same thing as saying all Muslims are terrorists because Al Qaeda is a terrorist group. Both assertions are absurd. Arnabdas (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Saying that a distributor can't edit this page is like saying that since I am a minister, I can't write anything about Christianity or Jesus Christ.
This is a bad comparison. That would actually be a good thing because ministers (good ones anyway) are experts on Christianity and can contribute with their knowledge of the subject. Xango distributors, on the other hand, are salespeople, so naturally they would want to present their product in a favorable fashion and edit out criticism. That is why WP:COI exists. --Ouzo (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Its a perfect comparison. Its ridiculous to believe that a Xango distributor would be incapable of writing in an unbiased manner. Your assumption here is that salespeople are unethical. A salesperson is genrally an expert on his product and a great source of information. Jspugh 11:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Losing Neutrality Again

We has a great rewrite here and people were working together for a change, but one person keeps reverting it to the version that most agreed was not neutral. Can we get a consensus here and not make this article ridiculous again? Jspugh 05:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality doesn't mean removing criticism. It means letting all sides speak and keeping all relevant information. John Broughton has done a great job, I think -- even though he's cut down drastically some things that I added, and re-added some things I thought weren't notable. I'm willing to accept that because it's clear to me that he just wants to be fair and produce a good article. He writes well too! Zora 19:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I need to read the article more closely, but if there are valid(WP:RS satisfying) criticisms, we should mention them per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. If it is giving undue weight, we can add positive views as well. --Aminz 07:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality also doesn't mean removing supporting statements and leaving criticisms because you are biased against the product, which is what Zora has continuously done. A quick review of the history of this article will reveal that. I agree, John Broughton has done a fine job with this article. It is now, not only neutral, but interesting to read. Jspugh 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Morton's PhD

I struck from the text the mention that Morton has a PhD. Firstly, this is still obvious from the footnote. Secondly, I find it especially troubling that the bio on the linked to site doesn't say what this man's PhD is in that makes him the "world's foremost expert" on the mangosteen. For all we know, it could be a PhD in Art History. If someone can cite a verifiable source that it's on a related topic in can be reinserted with the text "who has a PhD in [...]". - Aagtbdfoua 02:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


  • I withdraw the above objection. The current revision is acceptable. [6] Thanks for finding the Center for Science in the Public Interest article that provides Morton's credentials (and relationship to the founders). - Aagtbdfoua 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I chopped out the link to the editorial because it came up 404. Frankly, the whole "supporters" section seems designed to help these guys sell books and Xango. 72.229.130.7 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nutrient content and antioxidant properties of mangosteen arils and pericarp used in XanGo Juice

I have removed the following from the article, and am posting it here for review. I believe that this information belongs in the article on mangosteen, not here. There are other companies who make products from this fruit; it makes no sense to have this information appear in multiple articles, particularly the scientific issues, which obviously are contentious and should be discussed in one place only. If you feel that this removal is incorrect, please discuss in this section, below, before reposting. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The mangosteen fruit (refer to picture gallery[7]) can be divided simply as an inedible purple pericarp surrounding the edible white aril and seeds[8].
Since 2004, mangosteen has been included frequently among an emerging category of novel functional foods sometimes called "superfruits"[9][10] [11]presumed to have a combination of 1) appealing subjective qualities, such as taste, fragrance and visual appeal, 2) nutrient richness, 3) antioxidant strength and 4) potential impact for lowering risk against human diseases.
However, when analyzed specifically for its edible aril -- the base raw material for mangosteen juices such as XanGo -- mangosteen meets only the first superfruit criterion above, as its overall nutrient profile is absent of important content, and it contains no pigmentation (refer to white aril pulp in pictures[12]; correspondingly, the aril has no antioxidant phytochemicals in significant concentration) and there is no scientific evidence of aril constituents having any human health properties[13].
Should purée or juice from the arils be infused with pericarp polyphenol extracts, such as xanthones[14], mangosteen juice adopts the purple color and astringency of its pericarp pigments, so must be balanced for taste and sweetness requiring juices from other fruits.

A draft page for superfruit has been added to the wiki --Paul144 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Very, very nice set of references. In the ideal world, the text of the article would have footnotes that support each sentence or paragraph (since the subject is, arguably, controversial), but it's a super great start to have the set of references that are now included. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research

I have removed the following from the article because it does not comply with Wikipedia:No original research:

In other words, if XanGo LLC is to publicize these health claims, then XanGo Juice is subject to the same rigorous evaluation process as any pharmaceutical agent faces when being developed and marketed as a new drug. This involves the full range of preclinical animal experimentation and human clinical trials normally requiring at least a decade and tens of millions of dollars for sequential research expenditures to satisfy rigorous scientific expert review and world health standards[15].

This information should not go back into the article unless a reliable source specifically makes the connection between what is required for clinical trials and the situation with XanGo, as is explicitly discussed in this policy. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Wanted to check with the group before posting the following research article published via the NIH in their nutrition journal into the XanGo page under Critical assessments of XanGo juice.

Evaluation of Mangosteen juice blend on biomarkers of inflammation in obese subjects: a pilot, dose finding study - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2770545/ The study included four groups including placebo and three difference doses of the test product, XanGo Juice™: 3, 6 or 9 oz twice daily. The primary outcome measure of this study was high-sensitivity (HS)-CRP. Secondary outcome measures included other biochemical indicators of inflammation, anthropomorphic measures and a safety evaluation. HS-CRP measurements dropped after 8 weeks treatment compared to baseline in all 3 dose groups and increased in the placebo group. The changes from baseline were not significant but the comparison of change from baseline was significant for the 18 oz group when compared to placebo (p = 0.02). Other markers of inflammation (inflammatory cytokines) and a marker for lipid peroxidation (F2 isoprostane) did not show any significant differences when compared with placebo. There was a trend towards a decrease in BMI in the juice groups. There were no side effects reported in any of the groups and none of the laboratory or EKG safety assessments indicated clinically significant changes for any subject.
Nothing can be concluded about the role of mangosteen constituents from this study. This study is not a peer-approved clinical trial, but rather a preliminary pilot experiment in humans, with poor design.
First, other variables of diet and life activity apparently were not controlled in the subjects over the 8 week study period, confounding any possible conclusion about the specific effects of one small diet component -- twice daily intake of juice -- on the biomarker assessed.
Second, the commercial juice tested, XanGo, is a composition of 9 juices, among which are fruits (grape, blueberry, raspberry, strawberry, cranberry and cherry) each having evidence for anti-inflammatory activity in lab studies. Each of these has a stronger research story for anti-oxidant or anti-inflammatory effects than mangosteen which is a nutrient-poor fruit.[16]
This study contributes nothing to our understanding of mangosteen properties or this juice treatment, questioning whether rigorous editorial practices were applied to allow the report to be published. It is likely the journal which published the study, Nutrition Journal applied weak review practices to allow publication of such an unscientific, unprofessional study. The fault of allowing such rubbish into the public is both with the investigator/author and the editor/reviewers responsible for allowing such trash to see the light of day. --Zefr (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This was a pilot dose-finding study looking at the entire mangosteen juice blend (XanGo Juice) not just a specific look at mangosteen or any of the other fruits within the blend, but the blend as a whole. "XanGo Juice demonstrated an ability to reduce inflammation (as measured by HS-CRP), at all 3 dosages while the placebo group showed a small increase in the amount of inflammation."
Each manuscript submitted to Nutrition Journal is assigned to one or two external reviewers for peer-review. The suitability of a research article for publication in Nutrition Journal is assessed by peer reviewers, who base their decision primarily on the article's validity and coherence but who also consider its comprehensibility and level of interest to the reader. Nutrition Journal invites authors and readers to post comments on published articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erbjorn (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Another critical view of this study with some good points worth the read.[17]--Zefr (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the significance of the patent?

I know there is an issue with the patent and am very grateful for the information posted about it. This is just a personal question, on what the significance of a patent for a health drink is? Holannakata (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Although a patent has several purposes (see Wikipedia discussion under Rationale), in this case, it most likely intends to protect the formulation and/or the method of blending. Once filed, a US patent has a life of 20 years that would guard XanGo against imitators whose numbers continue to grow rapidly.
Although not always exercised, a patent also is a warning to competitors with a similar formulation that litigation can follow for imitation that is too close. With such sound financial foundation, XanGo is now the "1000 lb. gorilla" in the mangosteen juice arena and is able to throw around its weight as needed. --Paul144 (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The article should mention what is patented. Simply saying "us patent 6730333" isn't informative at all. Something like "granted a patent for foo (us patent 6730333)" would be enough. 67.180.193.93 (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Four Sections?

I personally don't care about the health benefits of Xango (I don't think it actually does anything for your health, I just buy it cause I love the taste), so I don't support or oppose the health information that takes up 7/8ths of this article. However, does it really need FOUR sections to itself? I think we can take all of those separate sections, and just put them under "Health Concerns" or "Critical Reception" or something to that effect. Also, on a lesser note, why is the Recommended Retail Price in the article? This is the only article I have ever seen that includes the RRP, let alone in the very first paragraph. I appreciate that Zora is just putting it there because they hate it and want to demonstrate that they think its expensive, but it seems pretty petty. Android 93 (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, what's with the big long rant about Xango not curing cancer? I've been looking through their PR stuff, and they never talk about cancer at all. And why specifically talk about cancer, when I bet it doesn't cure Lupus or Cholera either? If we're going to include every disease XanGo doesn't cure, we might need a separate article for that. Android 93 (talk) 07:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

XanGo claims it is "anti-cancer" in the paragraph above the cancer one. I'd say it is completely relevant and the claim that something can treat cancer needs to be analyzed. There was an FDA warning letter about this. --Ouzo (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

There is an open request for a third opinion. Can I ask what the dispute is, and who it is between? —BradV 00:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also paying attention to this page. What's going on? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Judging by the article history, the only active controversy is that people keep trying to discuss the product on the talk page. I've added a template to the top of this page that should help. If there's anything else, please reply here. —BradV 14:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think what Android 93 was talking about was this and this where, to my understanding, the reversion on this page was due to a misunderstanding and the revert on the main page was a disagreement on my part. I don't believe there is any edit warring going on right now. --Ouzo (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. The 3O request has been removed. —BradV 14:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I noticed there is some significant controversy about this product and some evidence in references provided that states the Xango company was warned by the FDA about information the company had placed in their brochures if that is correct. I would like to compliment the admins and editors here on the good job of keeping a Neutral Lead on this article as other articles such as this one here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonaVie state all the controversy points in the lead of the article. Thanks. DavidR2010 (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Nutrition Journal

I saw that someone added a blurb today about a Xango-sponsored clinical study published in 2009.[18] The primary finding they reported was that Xango lowered CRP levels, but the effect was significant only when it was consumed at 18 ounces per day (in other words, 18 of these per day) but not at 6 or 12 ounces per day, so the primary finding is not practically relevant. Furthermore, even with supra-normal consumption, the effect on CRP appeared to be very slight -- i.e., in Fig. 1, CRP appears to have been reduced from about 11.5 to about 10.5 (less than a 10% reduction) in the 18 ounce group. The authors don't explicitly quantify the baseline CRP value, the CRP value at 8 weeks, or the degree of CRP reduction from baseline to week 8, nor did they provide the units of CRP measurement. Seems like a very weak finding, shoddily reported. It's not enough to say "CRP was reduced"; what's important is how much it was reduced by; the authors seem to have completely ignored this critical consideration altogether. Since this is a primary source, and no secondary sources have written about the study, it does not seem to merit inclusion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Debated with the same conclusion in Dec 2009 (above).--Zefr (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out Zefr. I didn't realize that this study had already been discussed. Primary source company-funded research on dietary supplements can be highly problematic, as many of the examples I have seen in the past are as shoddy and misleading as the one above. The Xango study is most remarkable for what it showed that the product did NOT do. It basically had no significant effects on any of the parameters measured except CRP, and then only when the "dose" was pushed beyond the norm and the data were massaged to percent of baseline (a common fudge tactic). And yet someone comes along and adds a statement, without any any quantifier whatsoever, saying basically that "Xango significantly reduced CRP -- a biomarker of inflammation -- in obese subjects with heart disease".[19] Unbelievable!...aside from the fact that the subjects didn't have heart disease. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/xango-may-healthy-its-not/story.aspx?guid=%7BD6DAC815%2DEA39%2D43CC%2D94AE%2DCF4D36F7CCFF%7D
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:XanGo/Archives/2012&oldid=1137334079"