Anti-MLM Zealots – Part VI
By Len Clements © 2005

        Lots of people are anti-MLM. But few deserve the title of Anti-MLM Zealot. Your average anti-MLMer usually falls into one of two camps: There are those who failed at the business and discovered that there’s scapegoats galore which to assuage their ego – my sponsor didn’t support me, the products were too expensive, the pay plan was too confusing, Mars was in retrograde (no kidding, actually heard that one once), or whatever. No one ever seems to fail at MLM because they just weren’t very good at it. Then there are those who heard that MLM is bad, and instead of forming their own opinion, based on their own evaluation, they choose to adopt the other person’s negative opinion as their own. And the other person’s opinion usually came from someone else who never formed their own opinion – the opinion is rarely passed on unsolicited. So, to answer a common question I’m getting about this series, that’s the key distinction between your run-of-the-mill MLM basher and a full blown Anti-MLM Zealot. The Zealot wants to tell you their opinion of MLM whether you want it or not. They want to warn the world, to save us all from this horrible scam. And when we won’t listen (all ten million of us), they try to save us from ourselves by getting our state and federal government to silence the siren song of MLM that is so violently smashing our dreams into the rocks. When our proverbial ship comes in, the lowly MLM basher will simply tell you not to board it. The Anti-MLM Zealot will try to sink the ship, court-martial the Captain, imprison the crew, burn down the shipyard, and level every port-of-call that allowed it to anchor.

zeal·ot n. 1. A fanatically committed person. 2. A fervent and even militant proponent or opponent of something.

       There are only four bona-fide Anti-MLM Zealots in the U.S. today (for such an allegedly vile and pervasive business you’d think there would be more). Dean Van Druff is perhaps the least zealous among them, but his disjointed, unresearched article “What’s Wrong With Multilevel Marketing” is likely the most read piece of anti-MLM propaganda ever created. That’s why I rebutted his work in part one of this series. Robert FitzPatrick’s book “False Profits” seems to be the definitive work within the anti-MLM arena which is why he has been the subject of the last three segments of this series. Jon Taylor’s anti-MLM efforts are by far the most prolific, culminating in his 40,000 word manifesto titled “Product Based Pyramid Schemes.” That’s why I’ll be focusing on his work next.

MLM Survivors

       But let’s get back to our current subject, alias Ruth Carter and her “MLM Survivors” web site. Last issue I related her experience as an Amway distributor which she portrays as a miserable, depressing, and expensive one. A fifteen year relationship culminating in her turning hostile witness and writing a book called “Amway Motivational Organizations: Behind the Smoke & Mirrors.” In her book she suggests that “mind control” techniques were used on her, and that Amway Motivational Organizations (AMOs) were cult-like. When so many people coming from the same MLM support system claim to have lost so much for so long, and just couldn’t stop doing it, I do feel there is reason for genuine concern. So when she started her on line support group in the Fall of 1997 I admit to being a reluctant fan. Reluctant only because I felt she was unfairly stirring all Amway reps (now called Quixtar) into the same pot. Many do not support an AMO, and Amway corporate has clearly declared that their tools and events are not required. And she didn’t call it, she called it But her failure to recognize the dichotomy between Amway AMOs and the rest of the MLM industry didn’t end there.
       In spite of the fact that virtually 90% of her site’s content and message board posts pertain to Amway/Quixtar, she and her co-moderators are quick to attack, viciously, any mentioned MLM company or pro-MLM participant. “Ruth” offers a pull down menu on her home page where you can look up “news” (dirt) about specific “multilevel marketing” programs. Based on a phone verified survey conducted by the Network Marketing Business Journal, there are 2,100 MLM companies operating in the United States. Carter has 21 on her little hit list. Two are Amway and Quixtar (the same company, but hey, it makes the list look longer), another is an expired Amway distributor group made up of terminated Amway Diamonds (which she ironically seems to support in spite of the fact they were terminated because they tried to multilevel market the tapes and tools – which would have violated anti-pyramid law!). Of the remaining 19 one has never operated in the U.S., and ten were blatant illegal pyramids, not MLM companies, which have all been shut down. Then there’s Equinox, of course, it’s spin-off Trek Alliance, and The Tax People – which have also all been shut down. Within the entire content of her MLM survivor web site only six existing, actual MLM companies are even mentioned besides Amway/Quixtar. And even the negative information she provides about most of these six appears to have been scraped from the bottom of the barrel. Herbalife’s listing links to only a press release about founder Mark Hughes’ death. Melaleuca’s links to a law suit filed by some ex-distributors alleging fraud – which Melaleuca won! Nu Skin links to nothing more than a petition to the FTC asking them to examine Nu Skin’s adherence to a 1993 Consent Order – authored by the afore mention Jon Taylor, which the FTC has so far completely ignored.
       Most of the action is on their Yahoo message board, which is dictated over by Ruth Carter herself, under the name “nomore_scamz”, and Lindy Mack, as “PW.” One of the most active posters goes by the screen name “freethinker4.” After the Dateline segment on Quixtar and AMOs which aired last October, PW and freethinker4 revealed themselves as the husband and wife featured most prominently on the show. Yes, they too are ex-Amway reps (Ruth was also interviewed by Dateline, but for some reason her segment hit the cutting room floor – perhaps the lady doth protest too much?). The board lists over 3,200 members, but most of the activity seems to come from the same dozen or so people, and the number of posts has been dropping steadily over the last 18 months (from over 1,300 to 337 in February).
       It’s fairly common for folks who are considering MLM to join the forum to investigate the opportunity they are considering. Without exception they are told that all MLM companies are scams and should be unilaterally avoided. If a pro-MLMer dare wander into their domain they are immediately swarmed upon like killer bees. And the venom can be disturbingly toxic. And should anyone dare post corrections to the rampant flow of misleading or outright fraudulent anti-MLM information that’s posted there, they are tolerated for only as long as Ruth and PW feel they can win the point. Once undeniable proof is offered, or you simply offer up enough logic to make them look foolish, your post is deleted and you are permanently banned from the forum. Then they gloat over how pro-MLMers never seem to be able to post proof of our claims. Trust me, I know.
       Ruth and I first got into it last year when she posted material claiming that the DSA’s anti-Pyramid bill (HR 1220 – “Act to Prohibit Pyramid Schemes”) would actually “legalize product based pyramid schemes” and would have protected companies like Equinox from prosecution. Sound familiar? The term “product based pyramid schemes” is an invention all Jon Taylor’s, and the odd idea that the bill would have protected previously closed down companies originated with Robert FitzPatrick (and was debunked in Part IV of this series). I asked Ruth at the time if she had ever developed any of her own opinions about MLM in general, or was she just parroting FitzPatrick and Taylor? She claimed to have done her own research, of course, yet when pressed to address any issue outside the scope of Amway she continues to routinely reference the work of FitzPatrick and Taylor. I provided a respectful and thorough rebuttal to her erroneous comments as to the DSA bill and to her credit she allowed the response to post (all posts are screened by her and PW). But then, she still thought she had a valid comeback, which she eventually posted several days later. Then due to a death in my immediate family I was taken away from the debate for several days, only to return and find three posts from Ruth rhetorically wondering where I had gone, and challenging me to respond. She was definitely confident in her position in spite of the fact that most of it could be easily, logically, mathematically, and verifiably proven false – and it was in my response. Her follow up was a short comment about a couple of meaningless points, followed by a curt “That’s as far as I’m going with this.” I was then notified that my posting privileges were being revoked. One of her own board members then posted the comment; “Ruth, I would have thought you would have more to say about his response, especially since you asked for it three different times. As I read his response, he appeared to make some valid points.” This poster had obviously not figured out yet that the board moderators don’t respond to “valid points” that support MLM – they censor them.
       Before I was blacklisted I was able to answer some attacks by other board members, such as freethinker4’s totally baseless, unprovoked accusation that I sell my company’s products by making wild claims. Now, I’m a pretty calm guy, but I do have my hot buttons. One is an attack on my ethics. Another is wild product claims. Accuse me of being unethical by making wild product claims and watch out! I tried to explain to her as calmly as I could my loathing for such claims, which stemmed from my Dad just dieing from Emphysema, my Mom’s chronic ulcers, my Grandmother’s Alzheimer’s, and my brother’s Crohne’s disease – and all the garbage that’s out there claiming they can all be cured (I once watched a friend die of cancer while chugging every “natural” remedy she could find – for around $40 a bottle). Or worse, the suggestion that my Dad’s death could have been prevented had he (or I) been more “open minded” to all these pseudo-science based alternative treatments. I also directed her to the several articles I’ve written on my web site blasting such practices in MLM, and to a display ad I had running that said “NO! Our products don’t cure every disease known to science!” right in the ad. She also suggested that I “make more money selling (my) success system than selling products.” This is typical “survivor” modus operandi – if someone did it to them, then we all must do it to everybody. I pointed out that I offered my system for free and directed her to the online evidence. But rather than apologizing for misjudging me and showing even a modicum of compassion or empathy for my personal situation (she’s a registered nurse – you’d think it would come naturally), her response was disturbingly vitriolic. This wasn’t someone who was just being defensive or too egotistical to admit she was wrong. This was a person who seemed to be filled with anger and hatred beyond reason. What’s more, other board members were quick to agree with her accusations and supported her horrid retort. The point behind describing the condition of my family’s health was clearly not to gain sympathy, but the fact I received none told me a lot about the type people I was dealing with.
       Ruth was never so hateful, just infuriatingly evasive. She has a keen ability to sense when an argument is about to turn against her then lead you light-years away from the point you’re trying to make. For example, I made the claim, imbedded within a much larger more poignant issue, that a high failure rate among participants does not inherently make a profession dishonest, and that the majority of people who attempt to be successful doctors, lawyers, actors, politicians, or baseball players also fail, yet no one claims these occupations are scams. Rather than address the main issue being debated, she responded with her favorite comeback: “Unsubstantiated anecdotal claims. Where’s your evidence?” Countless times Ruth has used this clever “Prove it” response to avoid having to provide a response. Even in cases like this, when asking someone to show evidence that most who attempt to become pro baseball players fail at it makes her look astoundingly foolish and desperate. She later stated that she “might” grant me actors and baseball players, but if I could not support my claim regarding successful doctors and lawyers then “it rather spoils your argument.”
       But, couldn’t I have made the same point just as effectively by leaving out doctors and lawyers and using the other three professions? And what do you suppose she did after I went through the tedious, time wasting process of digging up the data to prove my claim about doctors and lawyers? That’s right – she completely ignored my response and dropped the point. To appreciate the silliness of Ruth’s penchant for requiring proof, here are some other statements she demanded “verifiable evidence” of: “You get out of it what you put into it” (how would one even begin to “verify” this?); “so many people (on the Survivor message board) complain and moan” (she demanded a total count of people involved, and the number who were complaining); and “There are goods and bads in any business” (she actually asked for “facts” to back up that claim!). One pro-MLM poster claimed he made over $100,000 last year at age 30, and Ruth responded by demanding to see his tax return and a copy of his birth certificate! According to the forum’s co-dictator “PW,” only “documentation can serve as evidence.” Yet, when it comes to virtually all of their anti-MLM data, personal testimony and hear-say are entirely acceptable. But then, he openly admits, without the slightest reservation; “There is a double standard with regard to pro-MLMers… argumentation in favor of MLM are not permitted here.”

        “Fairness is NOT one of the foundations of the MLM Survivors Club.”
           – Lindy “PW” Mack, Message Board Moderator

        “There is no requirement of balance in this club, numbskull… Give it up, troll.”
           – Vicki “Freethinker4” Mack, Message Board participant

       Their club rules also state “Rudeness, abusiveness, name calling and the like will not be tolerated.” Guess there’s a “double standard” on that one, too.
       Ruth also states that making claims “without verifiable proof” is a violation of “club rules.” But when I ask her to provide evidence of her claims, such as “fewer than 1% of MLM participants ever make a profit,” you’ll hear only crickets chirping. Unless it involves facts that FitzPatrick or Taylor have already published, she’s lost. And often times she’ll cite claims made by these two (such as the 1% claim) which even they don’t have evidence of – they just pulled it out of thin air. A new board member once asked if anyone had any “negative information” on Usana. Ruth responded that if she hadn’t found any, “you haven’t looked very hard.” Yet, in spite of the alleged ease in finding it, Ruth was unable to identify any of it. The standard of proof she requires of pro-MLMers are so high it borders on the absurd, but if it supports her anti-MLM position there seems to be virtually no standards at all. “Unsubstantiated” and “anecdotal” would describe at least 87.364% of the anti-MLM claims made in her message board. Okay, I didn’t really compute that number out – at least not to three decimal places – but I’m sure Ruth would ask for it!
       If Ruth’s “Prove it” dodge should ever fail, her Plan B is to play dumb. While debating the requirement that MLM companies sell sales aids “at cost,” which I said was true “based on legal precedent”, she first asked for the precedent, of course (I supplied it, she ignored it) then actually said this: “… ‘at cost’ covers a pretty gray area. If I manufacture a bunch of tapes at a cost of 60 cents apiece, and sell them… for $1.00, what is ‘at cost’?” I contacted three of the top economist in the country and we researched and debated her question for several hours. The consensus was that “at cost” in her example would probably be sixty cents! The “at a cost of 60 cents” part was a big clue.

        sar·casm n. 1. A mocking or contemptuously ironic remark.

       The folly of the MLM Survivor message board is far too extensive to cover in just one segment. Next issue I’ll explain how surviving a bad MLM experience is analogous to surviving The Holocaust, according to one MLM survivor. And I’ll tell you what facts I posted that got me canned a second time from their board. I saved the best anecdotes for last. We’re going to have some fun, so stick around!

Anti-MLM Zealots – Part V

Ruth Carter
By Len Clements © 2005

        If you haven’t been following this series you should really get the back issues and study up on your opponent. Not your opponent who’s trying to enroll your prospect into their opportunity, but your opponent who’s trying hard to make sure no one ever enrolls anyone into their opportunity!
        For what ever reason, there are a number of folks out there who are anti-MLM. In my experience, I’ve found most have a negative opinion of this business because they’ve been told to. Someone else they know, usually someone who has failed at it, formed this negative opinion and they’ve chosen to adopt it as their own. And when they gain the strength of mind to form their own opinion, based on their own investigation, the negativity usually evaporates.

        Then there are those more passionate Anti-MLM Zealots, like Robert FitzPatrick (author of the books “False Profits” and “Pyramid Nation”) who at least try to go beyond just anecdotal evidence in making their case against network marketing. I explained why he was wrong in the last three issues. And then there’s guys like Dean Van Druff (author of the article “What’s Wrong With Multilevel Marketing”) who openly admit they’ve performed virtually no investigation into the subject matter at all. His was a “theoretical” analyses. In other words, he guessed at it. I explained why he guessed wrong in the first segment of this series. In a future segment I’ll deconstruct the prolific anti-MLM efforts of Jon Taylor. Jon’s case is an odd one. He actually claims he was “successful” in MLM, yet still claims none of you will be.

Behind The Smoke & Mirrors – Ruth Carter

        So now we come to Ms. Ruth Carter. Ruth is a rare breed of Anti-MLM Zealot in that she not only, God forbid, actually participated in MLM, she was genuinely burned by it. As her story goes, which she’s chronicled in her book “Behind the Smoke & Mirrors,” she joined Amway back in 1982 after being invited to a few meetings. She recounts her feelings of curious apprehension, and how she had wondered why the speaker at one meeting was driving such a beat up old car when he was supposed to be so successful? Why was he serving store bought cookies and drinks in Styrofoam cups? Why was his wife, who was obviously home, never present? Why was there such “ludicrous” passion and excitement over a company that just sold some “basic household and personal care items, and supplied name brand product through a catalog”? However, it was not until about seven years later (of her 13 “core” years in the business) that she finally “neglected to leave my brain at the door” and started to look critically at her experience.
        This followed years of doing everything by the book: attending all the meetings (at first a 600 mile round trip), spending thousands of dollars on all the tapes and books she was told to purchase, attending all the major functions, showing the plan, recruiting people, and selling some products. Yet, she also describes her arduous financial struggles, debilitating bouts of depression, and poor social life (one date was “thoroughly appalled” after attending one meeting with her, and another claimed he had just lost his marriage over his wife’s Amway involvement – Ruth doesn’t elaborate, but I suspect that date didn’t go well). Six years into the business, with two children from a previous marriage, her savings depleted, no regular job, and a new husband who had tried in vain to get behind her Amway business, but who was now “questioning everything” about it causing constant arguments, she decided to have another child. Her husband wanted children, and she announced that she wouldn’t even consider having another child unless they were building the business so she could be a stay-at-home mom. He agreed to “do whatever it takes.” She then became pregnant – and their business “ground to a halt.”
        Several months later, Ruth’s loyalty and efforts finally attracted the attention of an upline Diamond who wanted her to come to work in his office. Understand, in the Amway world, such an offer is analogous to a real estate agent being asked to intern for Donald Trump, or a Catholic priest being asked to work directly with the Pope. Amway Diamonds are more than just edified by their downlines, they’re practically deified. However, this is when, as the story goes, Ruth was exposed to the inner workings of an AMO, or “Amway Motivational Organization” (better known as the “tapes & tools” business). She alleges a lucid moment occurred when she discovered that only 5% of the Diamond’s income came from his downline overrides. The rest came from tools and functions. She said she felt sick that she had “helped him steal from his distributors.” Actually, steeling would be offering them motivational tools, taking their money, then not sending motivational tools. Offering them, taking their money, then sending them exactly what they willingly ordered would be the opposite of stealing. But this is Ruth’s story.
        So, after seeing this “evidence” that was “right in front of (her) nose” for so long, and after visiting several anti-Amway web sites, she decided to turn hostile witness – and launched her own web site. It’s called
        This is probably a good time to address a common question I receive regarding this series: Why do I mention the Anti-MLM Zealot’s material by name? Doesn’t that increase the exposure to their work? Fair question. The answer is simple. I have no fear of you being exposed to their side of the story. I firmly believe this industry can stand up to any scrutiny. Only the side with the weakest argument doesn’t want you to compare both sides. Only the side that bases their case on anecdotal, theoretical, sometimes even completely fabricated arguments doesn’t want you to be exposed to all the facts. Like Ruth and her cohorts at, for example. We’ll get to her web site later.
        But first, what about this book? It does seem to paint a pretty compelling, dissuasive story against, well, at last Amway (now operating under the name of Quixtar and their parent company Alticor – however, her book was written in 1999 and she refers to them as Amway throughout, therefore I will as well). Indeed, the subtitle of her book is “Amway Motivational Organizations.” At least 90% of the material and discussions on her web site directly or indirectly pertain to Amway. Robert FitzPatrick, who’s testimonial consumes the entire back cover of her book, congratulates her for her “courage” to put the truth in print regarding the Amway business (an ironic accolade considering “Ruth Carter” hides behind a pseudonym – that’s not her real name).
        For the record, I also dislike the manner in which some AMOs operate. I am within the much larger MLM camp that believes you don’t have to spend thousands of dollars on books, tapes, videos and numerous meetings and functions. What is offered to distributors should be sold at, or even below cost. This would allow more distributors access to the material so the producer of the material makes their money by the resulting increased sales activity. That way the seller doesn’t make money by simply selling the tools, they only make money if the tools actually help the buyer make money.
        Having said that, let’s be clear about a few things. First, these tools Ruth is referring to are not offered by Amway, but by Diamond distributors (which she does acknowledge), and are not sold on a multilevel basis (in fact, Amway has terminated Diamonds who tried to do this). Amway corporate makes very clear these tools are totally optional and have no barring on any qualification in the compensation plan. Thousands of Amway reps are not involved in an AMO. Also, the Diamond distributor she uses as a case study in her book did, in fact, have gross income from Amway bonuses less than 5% of his total gross income, but this Diamond also incurred $2.6 million in expenses while operating his extensive tools and training business. His Amway income was actually 30% of his total net income. While I agree it should certainly be more, citing the 5% figure seems disingenuous. Also, Ruth provides a breakdown of the suggested training event costs for a year and it totals $1,040 – for forty-two events! That’s about the same cost as two Tony Robbins seminars. At an average of $24 per event, it’s actually not a bad deal – as long as you don’t go to all of them!
        Carter states that the training tapes are repetitive. “After you’ve heard a dozen or so teaching tapes, you’ve pretty much heard all the information they offer. So why subscribe to a Standing Order Tape (SOT) and buy a tape per week?” Good question – so why did she? She tries to make a case that the AMOs are cult-like in their use of brainwashing tactics. She devotes 36 of her 157 pages to a discussion of cults and “mind control”. This explains her devotion for so many years to both a financially and emotionally draining experience. This also explains why, when told to spend thousands on motivational books, tapes, videos, and meetings, she couldn’t simply say, No thanks (a perfectly valid option). This rationalizes her commitment to a program that allegedly encourages the shunning of friends and family who are unsupportive, and so severely damages such relationships. Yet, she paradoxically claims there are “millions of distributors who have walked away” from their Amway business. Millions. By Ruth’s own accounting (based on published data), 59% of all current Amway reps are inactive (that is, somehow found the will power to stop). She refers to “Prisoners of MLM” who have been psychologically manipulated into continuing, in spite of the notoriously high attrition rate throughout the MLM industry. Such statements seem to border on the absurd considering the extreme level of ease so many others seem to have in leaving their MLM program. In fact, it’s often too easy! She describes the many people whom she introduced the business to in much the same way it was introduced to her who immediately rejected it (or even, as described earlier, were “appalled” by their first introduction). What did they see that she failed to see? She does candidly questions her own “stupidity” in the beginning.
        While it may seem easy to just dismiss her “I did it because they told me to” explanation with the common Mom line “If they told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?” (my Mom used “bridge,” yours probably used the more common “cliff”). However, there are a very disproportionate number of folks who get involved in these Amway Motivational Organizations, lose a lot of money and friends, and just can’t seem to stop. I think the alleged use of mind control techniques by these groups deserves consideration and should not be summarily dismissed. Some people are more susceptible to these tactics than others (a sign of emotional weakness and lack of common sense perhaps, but certainly not intelligence), and in my opinion it does appear most AMO leaders are playing to that demographic. But let’s be clear: we are talking about a faction within Amway’s distributor ranks, not all distributor groups within Amway. And we are not talking about Amway corporate, who seem to be going out of their way to inform new reps of the true average income potential of the opportunity, and that the tools and training are completely optional, totally voluntary purchases. In fact, about two years before Ruth wrote her book Amway began requiring renewing reps to sign an agreement stating “I understand that the purchase of Business Support Materials is always optional.” If they choose to purchase such collateral material, they must sign an arbitration agreement. In their policies (which all reps must agree to) they clearly state:

“If you sponsor others, you have an obligation to train and motivate them whether or not they choose to buy Business Support Material. All distributors are free to change their volume of purchase of such items, to cancel standing orders, or to cease such purchases at any time without threats, pressure, or retaliation.”

        Ruth completely acknowledges all this, and the provision that anyone who sells such tools must agree to buy them back within 180 days, yet it appears to have made no impression on her at all. She claims this provision is “completely ignored by distributors in the field.” Her evidence? Two e-mails she received from “disillusioned” ex-distributors.
        Ms. Carter also gratuitously, and clumsily, attempts to make a case that Amway is now operating as a pyramid scheme. Like Robert FitzPatrick, she believes a high percentage of personal consumption among distributors is somehow indicative of an illegal pyramid (according to the FTC, it’s not, which was proven in the last installment). But it’s not so much what she’s claiming as how. Here’s her statement, verbatim: “Virtually no product is sold at retail today in North America – actual retail sales comprise only about 18% of all Amway sales.” According to Ruth, 18% = 0%.
        She makes the sensationalistic claim later in her book that “As financial and mental-health professionals become more familiar with the devastation that follows in the wake of many MLM opportunities, they are becoming better resources for helping people recover from AMO involvement.” Here in lies the crux of Carter’s ignorant, illogical, campaign against the entire MLM industry – she thinks the experiences of a subset of AMO members, themselves a subset of the entire Amway organization, which is a subset of the entire MLM industry, is indicative of how all MLM programs operate. All this in spite of the easily verifiable fact that such tools & training systems are virtually exclusive to Amway. No other MLM company employs such Motivational Organizations. Not a single one. And the “devastation” she refers to that requires the care of a mental-health professional is overly melodramatic and hyperbole even within Amway (certainly some folks have been devastated, but they are a small, vocal minority who file law suits and build web sites). I’ve known literally thousands of networkers over the last 14 years and can’t think of a single Oxyfresh, New Vision, Freelife or Cell Tech distributors who ever needed psychological counseling due to their experience. Every failed distributor I’ve ever known just quit, moved on, and got over it.
        Ruth Carter’s book is not what classifies her as an “Anti-MLM Zealot.” Obviously, she was genuinely traumatized by her experience. If writing a book and starting an on-line “survivor’s” support group for others with similar experiences is cathartic for her and others, more power to her. I sincerely mean that. But her agenda is not so benign. She has, once again it appears, been brainwashed into believing all MLM opportunities are evil, vile, scum. Her experience in this one organization within this one company was horrible, so they all must be as horrible. She is now so blinded by her loathing for all things MLM that she didn’t create, she launched This web site is where the real fun begins. Don’t miss the next issue!