BioPerformance Fuel resumes one year after Texas AG shut-down

Pill/powder product, said to increase mileage and horsepower, and to decrease emissions; is now back on sale -- and now admitted to contain Naphthalene (moth balls).  Is it without competition?

by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
Copyright © 2007

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, USA -- One year to the day following a ruling by the Texas Attorney General (AG) that temporarily shut them down, BioPerformance Inc. resumed operations, promoting its pill/powder fuel additive that is said to increase mileage and horsepower while decreasing emissions.

On Thursday, May 17, BioPerformance sent an email to its former distributors (independent business owners -- IBOs), announcing that the company was back in operation, following a preliminary test run with a few selected IBOs in which they earned nearly $270,000 in commissions in the first week.

Last year, May 17, 2006, when they were earning nine million dollars in sales with 50,000 distributors, the company was ordered by the Texas AG to temporarily halt operations, being charged with being a pyramid and for the product being toxic and not working as claimed. (Ref.) These charges were upheld in a hearing on May 30, 2006. (Ref.) A jury trial was set for Sept. 18, 2006, then postponed to Jan/Feb 2007.

An agreement was struck on Jan. 23, 2007 forcing BioPerformance to pay several million dollars compensation and banning them from making unjustified marketing claims, although with no admittance of any wrongdoing on the part of BioPerformance. (Ref.) The Texas AG did not allow the company to issue refunds and other payouts owed, but required such claims to be submitted to the AG office, which, ironically, were very difficult to file, and which have not yet been paid out, at least in some cases.

On April 19, 2007, founding associate, Earnie Land (Doc Fog), acquired the company from Lowell Mims, who founded the company in late 2005.

In his parting message to BP associates, Mims said: "When the State of Texas obtained a temporary injunction, we promised the distributors that we would fight for the company and its product. From that day to this, and against seemingly insurmountable odds, we have worked tirelessly to help restore the good names of all who were involved. We also submitted BioPerformance Fuel to rigorous, scientific testing and it passed the tests, as we knew it would."

BioPerformance compared to Naphthalene by University of Central Florida
BioPerformance compared to Naphthalene by University of Central Florida

Prior to the injunction, Mims and other BioPerformance executives had repeatedly and adamantly denied that the BioPerformance pill/powder contained any Naphthalene -- a toxic chemical that has been shown to improve mileage, but to the detriment of the engine. (Ref.)  The old website had touted the product as "non-toxic". Now the new website states that the product does contain a small portion of Naphthalene "as a dispersant", but it attributes the primary function of the product to three enzymes, which are non-patented trade secrets.

The Texas AG requires BP to state: "This product contains naphthalene as an active ingredient. Short term exposure, inhalation, ingestion or dermal contact with naphthalene is associated with hemolytic anemia, damage to the liver, and neurological damage."  In their re-launch, BioPerformance has chosen not to do business in Texas.

The new BP website pledges: "We will provide to the very best of our ability the best company of integrity with the best products and services our world needs..."  Yet in the second-to-last page of the "Business Presentation" linked from the top of the header that appears on every page of the site, is a bullet statement that alleges that no competing products exist.

This is a false statement in the extreme.  There are many products on the market that increase fuel efficiency. (Ref.) This is a fact about which the company leadership is certainly apprized to at least a small extent, inasmuch as BP dealers were solicited extensively by competing companies when the Texas AG injunction halted BP last year.  Furthermore, BP defended itself against one of competitor, Enviromax, who claimed BP was in violation of its patent. (Ref.)

As of the writing of this article, an inquiry to Doc Fog about this misrepresentation has not been answered.

Originally published at:  http://pesn.com/2007/05/18/9500472_BioPerformance_resumes/