MLM Blog gives boths sides of the story…
The rest of the BioPerformance, Inc. story
Media attention to the announced settlement by the Texas Attorney
General in State of Texas vs. BioPerformance, Inc. has unfairly relied
exclusively on statements in the AG’s press release and video announcement.
The settlement was a two-sided agreement between the State of Texas and
BioPerformance, yet news sources have not attempted to report on
BioPerformance’s position – in spite of its simultaneous press release that
was circulated nationally. See attached.The news fact that should catch your attention-and something that
was provided to the AG during the negotiations, is that only BioPerformance
tested the product in vehicles, and only BioPerformance has independent,
scientific proof about the product’s effectiveness. See attached. In spite
of false and reckless statements by the AG that the product is worthless and
is a "do-nothing" pill, the AG never tested the product in vehicles. The
bottom line is that actual testing, per rigid protocols for the FTP and HFET
tests under the EPA’s "Motor Vehicle Aftermarket Retrofit Device Evaluation
Program", was performed by an independent laboratory, and those tests
demonstrate "real improvement in reducing emissions and fuel savings" based
on EPA criteria.In addition, the AG did not "shut the business down." In fact, the
agreement reached with the Attorney General and signed by the Court
expressly authorizes BioPerformance, Inc. to continue marketing its proven
product. Further, BioPerformance, Inc. argued with the AG for the right to
use the funds on hand to make refunds to any of its customers who wanted
one, regardless of the reason, but the AG insisted on having his name on the
refund checks.Out of a simple, but fundamental, sense of fairness, is it too much
to ask the free press to provide both sides to this 2-sided settlement
agreement?
David F. Bragg
Attorney for BioPerformance,Inc.
