Let us start by apologizing to the Bard and my 8th grade English teacher for the headline. It's a good way to ask the question of how closely nutritional supplement companies can connect with the fast-moving world of social media.
In the trade, it is called public service journalism, but this may qualify more as a disservice. In the Sept. 21 issue with Tim Tebow on the cover (again?),
The Federal Trade Commission provides advertising lessons in its proposed settlement with CVS to refund nearly $2.8 million to buyers of the retailer's Air Shield dietary supplement.
We are not sure of the reason, but it seems that every three months or so, a national media outlet weighs in on an old story: tainted nutritional supplements.
According to this piece in Electronista, a recent AdMob study estimates Android Market's paid app market is only worth $5 million, and even high-profile, highly rated Android titles generate "much lower" revenue than iPhone equivalents.
This is Part II of the Post that began here in which we discuss the three important suits filed this summer by supplement lawyer Jonathan Emord challenging FDA administrative action on first amendment grounds.
This is a tale of two types of weight-loss products and how the Food and Drug Administration had different responses to similar problems with them. The separate, but not equivalent treatment raises questions about how the FDA operates.
Supplement lawyer Jonathan Emord has filed three important suits this summer challenging FDA administrative action on first amendment grounds. The suits were all filed on behalf of long-time Emord clients Durk Pearson, Sandy Shaw, the Alliance for Natural Health, and the Coalition to End FDA and FTC Censorship.
Financiers have discovered what the industry knew all along: Economic hard times have not been bad for makers and sellers of wellness products. People are willing to forgo luxuries, even new cars and homes, but not their health.