"Biochemistry department of Ohio State University just conducted a
study on approximately 350 supplements on human subject...The research
indicated an average of a 6 to 7% absorbancy factor for the majority
of vitamin/mineral supplements tested.  ...Research was done by Dr.
Marcus Cobb of the Boston area along with a colleague at Ohio State
University."

Unable to find any reference to the above study touted by a MLM
vitamin firm. Any suggestions? No dates given.

Hello, and thanks for your question.

Like you, I have been unable to find any reference to that research. 
I do have some clues for you, however, in case you did not find them
yourself.

First, there is very little information on "Dr. Marcus Cobb", although
I did find a reference to him in a discussion group related to A.D.D.:

http://www.netbizplus.com/BB/showthread.php?threadid=263

In that thread, they mention him with a colleague, Joe Clementi. 
Alas, trying to track down Joe Clementi was not particularly fruitful,
as it is a rather common name and without some additional context it
is really hard to find "the" person.

Going to Ohio State University, there is no mention of that research,
but there is also no real way to get a list of all the research done
at the university.  Nonetheless, if they are quoted in this MLM
literature, you should be able to simply call up the university and
ask them who did the research and how you might get a copy. You should
be able to contact their Office of Research to get you pointed in the
right direction:

http://research.rf.ohio-state.edu/index.html
(614) 292-1582

For what it is worth, here is a link to their Biochemistry Department
as well, although this research seems more nutrition-related, so I
have included that link too:

http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~biochem/
http://www.hec.ohio-state.edu/hn/

By the way, the MLM company wouldn't be Melaleuca
(http://www.melaleuca.com/) by any chance, would it?  They seem to
have some patented process ("fructose compounding") that substantially
increases vitamin/mineral absorption. If you are interested, the
patent (6,068,846) is here:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=pall&s1='6068846'.WKU.&OS=PN/6068846&RS=PN/6068846

I am sorry I could not provide the actual report for you, but I hope
this information helps you.

You were unable to answer the question as stated (for the amount I'm
willing to spend) but provided me the resources to do it myself.  To
Tomo-ga: Godd guess on the Melaleuca seed of my question.  I found a
co-workers claim for the efficacy of their product to be outragous &
want to find the report they based it on.

Inquiry with Shaklee and Melaleuca resulted in the following answer from Shaklee:

"There is erroneous printed and electronically disseminated information 
making the rounds regarding comparative absorption rates of Centrum, 
Shaklee, and Melaleuca supplements. 
 
"While the information we've seen appears to come from Melaleuca, 
Melaleuca, Inc. denies any knowledge of such a comparison or the 
supposed clinical tests on which the data is based.  Melaleuca has 
informed us that they are aware of the source of the misinformation and 
have contacted the person to immediately cease further dissemination of 
the material. 
 
"Ohio State University biochemistry department, which supposedly 
collaborated with a 'Dr. Marcus Cobb' in performing the tests, also 
claims no knowledge of the testing, and their biochemistry department 
also has no knowledge of such a test. 
 
"In checking the database of published clinicals, there is no such test 
data published by a 'Dr. Cobb.'"

The confusion comes from what you are looking for. The origianl
research was not sponsored by Ohio State University. It was part of an
unpublished Doctoral Thesis completed in 1999. That is why you cannot
find it as research having been sponsored by the university. Thesis
are almost never published.

The sl called "extreme" figures for absorption of Melaleuca Vitality
for Life supplements are in fact verified by the patent. Fructose
Compounding is a way to bind minerals into the inside of a fruit sugar
molecule. Every physician and every diabetic knows that the human body
absorbs virtually 100%of all the sugar that goes into the body. Ths
patented process provides the only known way for minerals to be
absorbed directly nto human cells. No other vitamin and mineral
supplements have a patent. Mellaeuca is unique. The absorption
percentages in the research for Melaleuca research is correct.

As for figures for other brands, it is obvious that you can suck on an
oyster shell all day and it isn't going to do you any good. If you
want copper, you can suck on a penny with equally bad results. The
human body was designed to get ist minerals associated with sugars
which is how they come with plants or in the sme form they exist in
the human body, which is how they come from animals.

The reason the other companies do not have a patent is because their
products cannot provide any proof that their supplements actually work
nd they would have their patent request refused for complete lack of
proof.The patent office provides patents only to products that are
unique and that can prove they work.

The worst part of your response was that you completely ignored the
basic facts of the absorption rates of the nutrients. Knowing that
there is a patent on the Fructose Compounding and there ar ezero
patents for any other supplement should have - all by itself - told
you that the Melaleuca products would obviously be vastly superior.

I think, there are several misrepresentations in the comment by blarneystone-ga:

1) I followed the link to the patent (6,068,846), and there is no
indication or claim that the process patented would increase the
absorption rate. If that is included in a different patent, please
provide a link to that patent.

2) The patent claims a certain composition of ingredients to affect
the mood of the patient. ALL claims of the patent, as far as I could
see, deal with the composition, none with their absorption efficiency.
The patent office will only verify the written claims as far as
possible. Therefore, the patent proves nothing about the absorption
rates.

3) The reason that other companies don't have the patent is that they
did not think about the way to process the ingredients, NOT because
they can't prove any absorption rates. Again, as far as I could see,
the absorption rates are NOT part of the patent.

To stick with your own words: You could probably get a patent for
embedding vitamins in an oyster shell to sell that as a supplement
delivery vehicle. But as you said yourself, this would not result in
an absorption rate any higher than the rate through another delivery
method.

Finally: I have no interest (financial or otherwise) in any of the
mentioned companies. Is that also the case for the other commenters?

It would help if you looked at the proper patent #4705875. By reading
the lengthly patent you will see that it is about absorption. No
percentages are given comparing brands of vitamins; however it can be
stated truthfully that the process is patented with the express
purpose of aiding absorption.
I too was looking for hard evidence of the Ohio study as I do not want
to pass on erroneous information that i have not verified myself. For
me the patent alone is evidence enough to support the claim that
fructose compounding is designed to make minerals more available to
your cells.
As far as the research in question it appears to be a study that was
done but has not been published and reviewed by the scientific
community.
MrsRaspberry

PATENT LINK:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4705875.WKU.&OS=PN/4705875&RS=PN/4705875