|
| |
BioPerformance Claims Vindication
Federal Test Procedure and Highway Fuel Economy Test protocols of the
Environmental Protection Agency show that BioPerformance fuel additive increases
mileage and decreases emissions, contrary to Texas Attorney General accusations
that shut down the company last May.
(adapted from press release)
by Sterling
D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
|
|
|
|
DALLAS, TX, USA -- BioPerformance, Inc. today entered into an agreement with the
State of Texas which requires that BioPerfomance provide the State with seven
million dollars "to make restitution for any existing issues of customer
satisfaction". It also opens the door for BioPerformance to resume
their marketing "very soon".
"We wanted to make refunds ourselves, but the Texas Attorney General
insisted that he be allowed to do it."
The case was set to go to court in three weeks; but the Texas attorney general
decided to settle out of court, saying it was best for consumers, according to a
WESH news report, which news company was instrumental in instigating the
Attorney General's actions last May. (Ref.)
According to David F. Bragg, the attorney for BioPerformance, "The
agreement reached with the Attorney General and signed by the Court expressly
authorizes BioPerformance, Inc. to continue marketing its proven product."
BioPerformance Fuel is an additive designed to increase fuel economy and
decrease emissions. Published affidavit testimonials stated improvements
ranging from a modest 10% up to as much as 40% improvement in fuel
economy. Instances of no improvement were ascribed to several factors
including car computers that needed to be reset to allow for new adjustments in
mixture settings.
With record high fuel prices abounding, the multi-level marketing company was
experiencing record growth with over 50,000 distributors at the time it was put
on hold with a temporary injunction by the Texas Attorney General's office on
May 17, 2006 following lab tests that showed that the product did not
work. The Texas AG tests followed reports by the widely circulated WESH-2
television Investigation Team in Florida that showed the product failing to
effect mileage even minutely. (Ref.)
It turns out that the product is temperature sensitive, beginning to break down
at 103Ί Farenheit, and becoming completely deactivated at around 113Ί F --
temperatures easily reached in the back of a UPS truck on a hot, sunny
day. It is very likely that the product tested by WESH in sunny Florida
and by the Texas AG was deactivated, and that is why it did not function.
It was "dead on arrival", so to speak. (See feedback
below.)
The temperature sensitivity is not a factor that was appreciated by the company
at the time, nor is it mentioned in the press release issued today. To the
contrary, the statement seems to infer inadequate testing as the culprit, not
inadequate or deactivated product.
Vindication
Where the "vindication" comes in is with new, highly credible test
results. Recently completed testing of BioPerformance Fuel by an
independent laboratory using the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and Highway Fuel
Economy Test (HFET) protocols of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a
group of vehicles established a reasonable degree of confidence that the product
gives a real improvement in fuel economy and reduction in harmful emissions.
(See report below.)
News reports show that the EPA has previously tested more than 100 other fuel
additives under its FTP and HFET protocols, with no demonstrable positive
results. The company believes that BioPerformance Fuel is the first fuel
additive proven effective by an independent laboratory under the EPA's strict
protocols.
In June, a BioPerformance newsletter stated: "There are tons of product
sitting in the fulfillment center ready to be shipped, but cannot be shipped
because all assets are frozen. We also understand that the manufacturer in
Mexico now has 100 -200 tons of available product, but obviously this cannot be
sent until it is paid for."
BioPerformance today announced: "We are extremely pleased to be putting
behind us the action by the State of Texas. We also are very pleased with the
test results obtained so far. Distributors may expect to resume marketing the
product soon.
"Several months ago, BioPerformance Fuel was the target of numerous media
reports challenging its effectiveness. We believe these reports relied on the
evidence of under-informed 'experts' or ineffective or non-existent testing. To
our knowledge, none of the reports were supported by tests comparable to the
Federal Test Procedure and Highway Fuel Economy Test protocols used by the
independent laboratory in its recent testing of BioPerformance Fuel."
In its agreement with the State of Texas, BioPerformance specifically denied any
wrong-doing. However, BioPerformance reports: "It is important to ensure
that the product and sales program meet all lawful requirements so that all of
our energy can be devoted to helping consumers save gas and reduce
pollution."
According to WESH, the Attorney General stipulated that Lowell Mims, CEO of
BioPerformance "has to tell the truth about it: that it doesn't work, that
it's made of mothballs and that it's toxic." (Ref.)
It hardly seems plausible that the Attorney General would make such a
stipulation, which would be tantamount to condoning a fraudulent operation.
The BioPerformance website is back in operation, after all these months of
having been offline.
# # #
Report on BioPerformance Fuel
Wallace Environmental Testing Labs, Inc. is an independent, full
service automotive emissions testing facility currently recognized
by both the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as
well as the California Air Resource Board (CARB) as being capable of
performing Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and Highway Fuel Economy
Test (HFET) test procedures. We have been involved in emissions
testing since 1984 and have conducted tests on many fuel additive
products to determine whether they increase fuel economy and reduce
emissions in gasoline powered vehicles.
The FTP (40 C.F.R. Part 86) is the primary test for vehicle
emissions. The FTP and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET) (40
C.F.R. Part 600) are tests recognized by the EPA for evaluating fuel
economy of light-duty vehicles.
BioPerformance, Inc. retained Wallace Environmental Testing Labs,
Inc. to perform FTP and HFET tests on a group of vehicles to
determine whether its product, "BioPerformance Fuel",
increases fuel economy and reduces emissions. Each required phase of
the FTP and HFET procedures was completed by this laboratory. At the
appropriate phases of the testing, the powder form of BioPerformance
Fuel was used in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
Using the EPA's criteria for the evaluation of fuel additives, the
FTP and HFET tests conducted by this laboratory provide a reasonable
degree of confidence that the product causes a real improvement in
fuel economy and reduction in emissions. The emissions tested were
Hydrocarbons (HC) which showed an average reduction of 5.387%,
Carbon Monoxide (CO) which showed an average reduction of 7.315%,
and Nitrous Oxide (NOx) which showed an average reduction of 3.513%.
Except as stated in this report, BioPerformance, Inc. considers the
specific results of the tests to be proprietary information. For
this reason, we have no authority to and will not release or discuss
the results unless instructed to do so by BioPerformance, Inc.
2140 Wirtcrest, Houston, Texas
Phone # 713-956-7705, Fax # 713-956-0104 |
|
SOURCES:
Feedback
On Jan. 24, BioPerformance executive, "Doc FOG" wrote:
(slightly edited)
I'm not the expert on this.....but I am the one that has the passport open
and have been meeting with the experts; and quality control is something we have
been addressing. As I think I understand it, the enzyme proteins begins a
chemical reaction for a number of reasons and temperature is one.
"Breakdown" is not the word, but maybe the protein becomes active at a
certain degrees and 103 would be a fair reaction temp for some activity of
chemical reaction. However, 113 is not the degree that breaks the protein down
or that kills the enzyme. It takes a higher temp to kill the enzyme. And to
create a total chemical reaction, or as you say for it to become inactive, takes
the temp that will kill the enzyme or many hours of activity at lower temps. You
have made a very good point and it is being addressed by a Professor in enzyme
engineering.
* * * *
Hardly a Vindication
On Jan. 27, Penny <pennies_everywhere {at} hushmail.com > wrote:
Sterling, I really wish that you had read the settlement decree before
penning your article. The settlement expressly bars the deft's from selling
their little green moth ball pills and making the claims that they have without
scientific proof to back up any and all of the substantial claims they choose to
make. It also requires them to disclose the pills contain napthalene (i.e. the
active ingredient in moth balls) which is highly toxic.
The decree hammers BioPerformance on their pyramid distribution scheme.
I just can't read that settlement decree as a vindication for Bio
Performance.
The very weak summary statement by WELT is all but worthless without the
detailed report Bio Performance declines to publish.
BP insists that BP provided the Texas AG with detailed fully qualified test
results supporting their claims prior to the decree. Now this is very
interesting. If we accept for a moment the possibility that for at least
certain cars napthalene would provide some benefit, (we put aside concerns for
damage to valves, and pollution controls) and view the specific terms of the
decree it really raises questions about the Texas AG's assertions that they have
shut BP down.
From what I can tell, BP fully intends to be back up and running their
business. I think this situation is one to keep your eye on. On the
one hand we have BP claiming vindication when they have consented to numerous
disclosure and proof requirements, and changes to the MLM. On the other we
have the Texas AG saying that they have shut down a business when the decree
only does that under the assumption that BP can't come up with scientific
evidence to support their claims. BP says they have already shared
precisely that evidence with the Texas AG. Their respective messages
appear to be at complete odds with each other.
See also
|
|
|
Page posted by Sterling
D. Allan Jan. 23, 2007
Last updated January 27, 2007
|
| |
|
Feed