BidForMyMeds threaten legal action over review
Earlier this week I published a review on the BidForMyMeds business opportunity. Key issues identified in the review was the misleading presentation of BidRx’s executive management as that of BidForMyMeds, a lack of disclosure as to who was actually running BidForMyMeds, and concerns over what was essentially a $17 a month chain recruitment scheme.
Within 6 hours of the BehindMLM review going live, BidForMyMeds got in touch and demand that I ‘immediately post a retraction‘. An Andrew Longcore, claiming to be BidForMyMeds “corporate attorney”, claimed that the review was ‘filled with false and misleading information‘.
Dated January 7th 2014, here’s the email Andrew Longcore (right) sent me:
I am the corporate attorney for Bid For My Meds. I have been recently made aware of a review that was posted on your website, behindmlm.com, about our company.
In reviewing the information that you have posted, I regret that I must ask you to immediately post a retraction as the information you have posted is filled with false and misleading information.
Bid For My Meds is a legitimate representative of BidRx, LLC and as such we sell memberships to the end user that allows them to access the BidRx system to purchase their prescription medication.
We allow everyone to see what their potential savings before they purchase their membership. This feature is the same “free membership” that you indicate that individuals can get directly from BidRx.
While BidRx will grant customers access to see their potential savings, every individual must purchase a membership with BidRx in order to actually place their order.
Bid For My Meds also allows individuals that would like to become distributors to have access to the materials and support needed to be able to pursue that business opportunity in addition to their membership that gives them access to the BidRx system.
Referral Partners of Bid For My Meds are compensated for each membership sale they make.
In addition, Referral Partners can start their own organization of Referral Partners and receive income for the memberships sold by those underneath them.
Your claims that there is no product and that Bid For My Meds is a “pyramid scheme” is nothing more than uninformed analysis by you based on a simple internet search.
The fact that you have not spoken to Bid For My Meds or BidRx would indicate that your statements are negligent in nature and being made with a complete lack of knowledge of the truth being asserted in your statements.
These types of communication are not only harmful to Bid For My Meds but also the reputation of BidRx. The potential damage to both companies reputation is irreparable.
I request that you issue a retraction to your statements immediately.
Failure to do so will force Bid For My Meds to seek outside counsel to protect our rights to the fullest.
If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me.
Very Truly Yours,
BID FOR MY MEDS
Oh indeed I had questions and, as I typically do in these situations, gave BidForMyMeds the opportunity to respond directly to my concerns in the review.
Dated January 8th 2014, here’s the response I sent back to Mr. Longcore:
You state BidForMyMeds is a “legitimate representative of BidRx”. Can you clarify this? Is there any contractual corporate relationship between the two companies? Is BidRx directly affiliated with BidForMyMeds in any way (or vice-versa)?
Further can you confirm BidForMyMeds is not owned and operated by Ralph Kalies and Tom Kellenberger?
If not, can you explain why BidForMyMeds deceptively puts up their information on BidForMyMeds’ “About Us” website page?
Furthermore can you also clarify who then is running BidForMyMeds and explain why this information is absent from the BidsForMyMeds website?
“we sell memberships to the end user that allows them to access the BidRx system”
So, with the above statement, you are confirming that BidForMyMeds sells no retail products or services of their own. They charge fees for access to a third-party system that in turn offers discounts on third-party (twice removed) products and/or services?
If this is not correct please clarify.
“we sell memberships to the end user that allows them to access the BidRx system to purchase their prescription medication. We allow everyone to see what their potential savings before they purchase their membership.
This feature is the same “free membership” that you indicate that individuals can get directly from BidRx. While BidRx will grant customers access to see their potential savings, every individual must purchase a membership with BidRx in order to actually place their order.”
The following is taken from the BidsRx website:
“Membership Fees. There may be a charge to become a Participant of BidRx.com for personal use of BidRx.com as a tool for obtaining prescriptions.
Any charge for participation is included in the cost of your prescription and collected by the pharmacy.”
The above is not a flatrate monthly fee, as charged by BidForMyMeds. As such fees charged by BidRx are not subscription based, but rather based on the purchase of good and services from third-parties.
BidForMyMeds charges a flatrate subscription fee to access BidRx, irrespective of whether or not any goods or services are purchased through the third-party service.
Furthermore, can you confirm any of the money charged by BidForMyMeds is paid to BidRx for membership? Or whether BidRx do not charge members when they place orders for membership because members have already paid BidForMyMeds for membership as you claim?
“Referral Partners of Bid For My Meds are compensated for each membership sale they make. In addition, Referral Partners can start their own organization of Referral Partners and receive income for the memberships sold by those underneath them.
Your claims that there is no product and that Bid For My Meds is a “pyramid scheme” is nothing more than uninformed analysis.”
I refer you to FTC, who state:
“In multilevel or network marketing, individuals sell products to the public.
Not all multilevel marketing plans are legitimate. If the money you make is based on your sales to the public, it may be a legitimate multilevel marketing plan. If the money you make is based on the number of people you recruit and your sales to them, it’s not. It’s a pyramid scheme.”
In BidForMyMeds, I pay my $17 and recruit new affiliates who also pay $17, and I get paid for doing nothing more than recruiting new $17 affiliates.
No products or services are sold by or through BidForMyMeds to retail customers (non-affiliates).
You are welcome to challenge the above, but you (or your outside counsel) will have to take it up with the FTC.
I await your response to the requests for information I have made above.
As Longcore was of the impression that pointing out red flags in the BidForMyMeds opportunity would somehow damage the reputation of BidRx, I took it upon myself to reach out to them Troy Dooly style to try to get to the bottom of things.
Also dated January 8th, my email to BidRx’s legal counsel was as follows:
I run BehindMLM and recently reviewed the BidForMyMeds MLM business opportunity.
Shortly after publishing my review and analysis I was contacted by BidForMyMeds’ “corporate attorney”, a Mr. Andrew Longcore, demanding that I “immediately post a retraction” on the information I had published.
I’ve responded in kind to Mr. Longcore’s request, having requested several clarification (sic) to the claims made on their website. I am writing to you seeking similar clarification on some of the concerns raised.
Firstly Mr. Longcore claims that BidForMyMeds is a “legitimate representative” of BidRx. Is this true? What is the exact nature of any corporate or business relationship between BidRx and BidForMyMeds.
In comments left on BehindMLM, BidForMyMeds affiliates are asserting the idea that BidRx is the parent company of BidForMyMeds.
Has BidRx authorised the publication of BidRx’s CEO and Vice President on the BidForMyMeds “About Us” webpage?
If BidForMyMeds has been authorised to publish this information, do you not believe this is somewhat misleading seeing as neither Ralph Kalies or Tom Kellenberger have anything to do with BidForMyMeds at a corporate level.
If they do, feel free to advise the details as I’m unaware of any such relationship or involvement.
Also what is BidRx’s stance on BidForMyMeds deceptively using BidRx’s media coverage to further their own business?
This is done on the BidForMyMeds website and has been done by BidForMyMeds affiliates on BehindMLM (citing media coverage that mentions BidRx but makes no mention of BidForMyMeds)
Finally does BidRx endorse BidForMyMeds’ MLM business model, which charges affiliates $17 a month and pays them to recruit new $17 a month fee paying affiliates?
As per the FTC, BidForMyMeds’ business model is a pyramid scheme –
“In multilevel or network marketing, individuals sell products to the public – often by word of mouth and direct sales. Typically, distributors earn commissions, not only for their own sales, but also for sales made by the people they recruit.
Not all multilevel marketing plans are legitimate. If the money you make is based on your sales to the public, it may be a legitimate multilevel marketing plan.
If the money you make is based on the number of people you recruit and your sales to them, it’s not. It’s a pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes are illegal, and the vast majority of participants lose money.”
The above is taken from the FTC website – business.ftc.gov/documents/inv08-bottom-line-about-multi-level-marketing-plans
And you can read the BehindMLM review of BidForMyMeds here – (Ozedit: BehindMLM URL removed)
I look forward to your assistance in clarifying information regarding the BidForMyMeds MLM business opportunity. Thankyou for your time.
Despite taking less than 6 hours to respond to the BehindMLM BidForMyMeds review when it was published, four days have passed and neither BidRx or BidForMyMeds have responded to the queries above.
Make of that what you will.
Meanwhile BehindMLM reader “zoe” emailed BidRx on January 9th, to ask “if there was a connection” between BidRx and BidForMyMeds.
Zoe received a reply from BidRx within 48 hours:
BidRx® currently offers two options for individual access to our patented business process that uses the power of the internet to create a Competitive Electronic Marketplace (CEM®) for drugs. As a result, BidRx® usually gets the best prices on prescriptions.
The first option is with a pre-paid membership. With this option, members pay a monthly membership fee and get pass-through best prices from bidding pharmacies.
The option is available from independent marketing companies, including:
The second option is without a pre-paid membership, but with a per-Rx administrative fee added onto the price from bidding pharmacies.
In order to register on BidRx.com, this option requires interested users to get a referral code from one of many independent sale representatives across the U.S. that market BidRx® services.
Reiterating the difference between BidForMyMeds membership and BidRx, it’s clear that the monthly subscription model is only half of the BidRx coin. The “per-Rx administrative fee” membership is free and offers access to the same discounts.
And let me clarify, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with BidRx running these two models side by side. The issue is BidForMyMeds $17 affiliate membership, which pays on the recruitment of new $17 affiliates.
To date no explanation has been forthright clarifying what, other than qualification to receive recruitment commissions, the extra $10 gets affiliates in BidForMyMeds over $7 members.
Neither has BidForMyMeds clarified whether or not they actually market anything at a retail level within the company itself.
Whether or not BidForMyMeds approach “outside counsel” and follow through with their threats remains to be seen. If they do, one would hope they approach someone who is perhaps a little more familiar with the MLM industry than Mr. Longcore appears to be.
Having a $7 a month “retail” membership option becomes irrelevant if the vast majority of memberships sold within BidForMyMeds are $17 a month affiliate memberships.
Furthermore any legal proceedings would result in discovery quickly revealing whether or not the majority of commissions paid out were a result of $17 affiliate recruitment, or the sale of products or services. Putting aside of course the fact that BidForMyMeds themselves have no such products or services of their own (which is a another MLM red-flag issue in itself).
Your move gentlemen.
Mr. Longcore is a junior attorney as he only got his license 4 years ago (december 2009). State Bar says he works for “Business Law Group”, but his social profile says he works for “Howard Law Group” at a different address. Both out of Michigan, though the Allendale Business Law Group is probably the current one.
Wife’s name’s probably Kristy, and his mother is a real estate agent. 🙂 Google’s a lovely tool.
According to his profile on LinkedIn, Andrew Longcore started, and is currently the “Small Business Attorney at The Business Law Group”
To whomever BidForMyMeds douchey rep reading this,
Do you understand to what sort of shitstorm you are getting yourself into by attempting to silence a legitimate analysis and review of your little exploitation racket?
If you won’t retract your baseless request of retraction, you will face a much less nice review on a much less nice website.
Here’s a little teaser of that said article (so there won’t be any mistake): BidForMyMeds dreads that the feds will tear it to shreds because the consumers it has scammed.
Very Truly Yours,
Omri Shabat, GlancingWeb.com
A solo flyer, eh? Or did they picked his name out of a phone book? Where’s BidForMyMeds based again?
We should be a little charitable to Mr. Longcore, it’s a tough market out there for young J.D.’s, particularly when they’re just starting to make a name for themselves. In fact BehindMLM is already on the second page of Google results for “Andrew Longcore Attorney.”
No one should take issue with Mr. Longcore sending an email on behalf of his client, that’s just part of the job. And it isn’t surprising that he hasn’t followed up on Oz’s reply.
Mr. Longcore may not have many years of experience practicing law but he is a licensed attorney. He knows how foolish it would be for his client to pursue this past a polite request.
Check out 2 people who have very dubious backgrounds in shister mlm circles:
1) Paul Schnieder
2) Larry Lalamedier
The Larry dude is Pauls running buddy and the last fiasco I recall was called MVP Network. Paul guy was the owner/programmer in St Louis.
Paul guy is running BidsForMyMeds and owns the so called “Exclusive” contract with BidsRX. I predict the 2 doctors will run for the hills when they discover the nest of snakes they have gotten involved with.
Good job your doing exposing these rip off people.
Heres the info on a $4,600.00 judgment for stock fraud involving P Schnieder:
Let’s talk about the MLM’s world’s uncanny ability to miss signals: The first full business week of the new year began on Jan. 6. On Jan. 7, the FTC announced actions against three companies it accused of deceptive advertising.
Eager to reinforce the message that deceptive advertising won’t be tolerated in 2014, the FTC announced actions on Jan. 9 against 10 other companies it accused of deceiving the consuming public.
How did the BidForMyMeds wing of the MLM world react? By threatening to sue, of course!
And who would be the the Stepfordian-pleasing target? Why none other than Oz, the Blogger who opened the world’s eyes to Zeek Rewards and one of the genuine voices of reason in the MLM world.
In my view, Oz raised legitimate questions about what he sees as “the misleading presentation of BidRx’s executive management as that of BidForMyMeds, a lack of disclosure as to who was actually running BidForMyMeds, and concerns over what was essentially a $17 a month chain recruitment scheme.”
The threat appears to have sent on the very day the FTC announced the first three deceptive-advertising actions of 2014.
It wouldn’t sell as fiction.
P.S. Oz says the lawsuit threat was made on Jan. 7, within six hours of the publication of his column. Anyone know if this sets a new MLM record for the quickest company to threaten to sue going into a new year or a new record for the shortest time elapse between the publication of a column and the sending of a threat to sue?
Maybe instead of a “corporate attorney” threatening a prominent Blogger during yet-another disingenuous MLM prelaunch and contributing to yet-another PR nightmare for MLM, the first move should be to try to gain a legitimate understanding of the PR problem BidForMyMeds created for BidRX out of the gate.
I’d be inclined to describe the early developments brought on by the BidForMyMeds PR/marketing approach as every bit as “WARPED, SNEAKY, and MISGUIDED” as the “drug pricing” BidForMyMeds complains about on its landing page.
And talk about mixed messages: As a consumer, I view the “WARPED, SNEAKY, and MISGUIDED” language leading into the drug-pricing complaint as a not-so-subtle attack on “Big Pharma.”
It’s hard for me to reconcile that message, given that it seems BidForMyMeds will have to make nice with Big Pharma if it expects to sell any its products introduced through BidRX to consumers who prefer them or avoid less-expensive alternatives or generics altogether as a matter of personal choice in the free market. (Is BidRX dissatisfied with Big Pharma or otherwise anti-Big Pharma? BidForMyMeds seems to be saying so.)
And as Oz pointed out, the “About Us” page at BidForMyMeds leads visitors to believe that the BidRX executives are BidForMyMeds executives. And the logos of the famous media companies lead visitors to believe that BidForMyMeds is BidRX or that there are no distinctions between the companies.
I think that’s wholly disingenuous, if not deceptive on its face. It’s also tone-deaf, given the FTC actions announced earlier this week against 13 companies accused of misleading the public.
I’d add that one apparent supporter of BidForMyMeds apparently thought it prudent to “defend” the program by posting the 2011 Today show video right here at BehindMLM — thus reinforcing one of the key points Oz was making: that BidForMyMeds is not BidRx.
There are other concerns . . .
BidForMyMeds already is on at least three Ponzi boards, arguably taking BidRX along with it to the cesspits.
On TalkGold, for example, there’s already a thread-hijacking dispute between the head TalkGold cheerleader (thread-starter) for BidForMyMeds and a perceived interloper. Looks as though the perceived interloper could be associated with the head cheerleader for BidForMyMeds on MoneyMakerGroup.
Looks to me as though BidForMyMeds is running part of its support operation from MoneyMakerGroup. If so, that’s just plain bizarre, given the amount of polluted money a Ponzi forum can direct to a “program.”
There is a high probability of great embarrassment for BidRX if it’s name becomes associated with the Ponzi boards. It’s still early, but could the “I Got Paid” posts and Ponzi-board checkwaving for BidForMyMeds be far behind.)
And what will BidRX do if it sees its name on the Ponzi boards, above a signature line that screams, “I’m also offering SuitcaseSurf. It’s a real BOMB that pays 7 percent a day!”
If BidForMyMeds doesn’t mind an association with the Ponzi boards, here’s hoping BidRX does.
You do, don’t you, BidRX?
Of course, the person who posted the Today show video here also couldn’t resist the urge to trot out the “You guys couldn’t make in the [MLM] industry” deflection. (It was hard not to think back to the days when “supporters” of Zeek Rewards were using the same mindless deflection — before they seamlessly transitioned to mindless antigovernment rhetoric after the SEC action.)
Meanwhile, the poster seems also to believe that there’s some advantage for fellow BidForMyMeds supporters if they cast Oz as another Troy Dooly.
“Oh, well the OZ’s and Dooley’s [sic] of the world have to exist so the rest of us can have a good laugh,” the poster vomitously observes.
This is the type of amateur PR that MLM can’t seem to escape. It makes BidForMyMeds, BidRX and MLM in general look clueless and silly.
What will the next argument be? That Bloggers who write “negative” reviews of BidForMyMeds are secretly working for Big Pharma or otherwise on the take?
I’m thinking that BidRX might be well-advised to reflect on the possibility that a single MLMer with a predisposition toward magical constructions and conspiracy theories can cause problems no company ever would want.
Finally, speaking as a consumer, I’ve already formed the belief that a bunch of serially disingenuous MLM hucksters and HYIPers have boarded the BidForMyMeds train. And although I’d like to have favorable thoughts about BidRX given that it would be nice if consumers could save money when purchasing prescription medications, it’s much harder now.
I read most of the Cease & Desist Order, but where did you find the information that Paul Scheider is running BidsForMyMeds? I tried to search for information myself, and I found some “indicators” (e.g. MVP Health Care).
The order against Paul Schneider / MVP was about deceptive and unlicensed sale of securities, by misleading 5 investors (2 companies, 3 individuals) about different things.
The deception involved not telling the investors that the company was placed in receivership on November 23 2009 / April 6 2010 (there may be some other type of fraud involved here, not covered by the C&D). He actually owned the shares.
🙂 I am not sure I have seen my name referenced in a critic’s post and comment thread this much, since Zeek.
And in this case I am not affiliated in any way or shape with the company, and do not see that ever changing!
Seriously, both Oz and Patrick brought up very valid points. And although “G” is correct in giving the attorney some grace. I have to state that since the attorney did use the term “business opportunity” instead of “mlm opportunity”, “income opportunity” or network marketing marketing opportunity”, I do think he should study a little more on the FTC Business Opportunity Rule to make sure he doesn’t cause his own client additional issues.
This may be the first company in 2014 to gain the attention of critics inside and outside the network marketing community, but it won’t be the last.
With Obamacare being the story of the year, rest assured some other players will try and exploit people to join a company or buy a service that will allow them to either save money on their medical expenses, or screw the government by offering them some form of “co-op medical program” that will allow them to opt-out of Obamacare and not be penalized.
Patrick’s reference to the Ponzi Boards is one of the best signs of this taking place. With so many sovereign citizens blowing their horns, and all the normal citizens just looking for a way to save money and get some form of care they can afford, I believe we will continue to see this crap in 2014 unless the regulators hit a company hard and fast… Which may happen sooner than later.
And Patrick… I may be hard headed but I do learn from my past mistakes. 😉
We can take a look at what defamation is about, e.g. how it’s defined in
“The communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation.”
Laws are about realities. The important part is “harms the reputation”, that the communication has some “damaging effect” in reality. It’s not about personal feelings (in relevant jurisdictions).
“False” should normally include “misleading”, “deceptive” and other similar terms. It isn’t about whether or not something technically is false or true, e.g. nitpicking details. Freedom of Speech will accept all types of normal incorrectness used in all types of normal communication.
He pointed out the statement “no product”, and the conclusion “pyramid scheme”. Yet he failed to identify the product himself, i.e. he didn’t add anything to correct the conclusion.
I would normally have expected him to CLEARLY identify the commissionable product/service. People can’t correct anything if they can’t identify it.
His statement “we sell memberships …” can indirectly be interpreted to be about a product or service:
Most of the letter actually sounds like it has been written by marketing people rather than a lawyer. A lawyer should normally have focused on pointing out clearly what the incorrectness was about.
This part should normally have been about a “value adding component”, rather than a sales component:
“Allowing people to see their potential savings before they purchase memberships” is a part of the sales process, not a part of the membership.
His description of the recruitment part:
They can probably charge a monthly fee to cover some costs, but they can’t call that “selling product or services to end users”. The service offered is about the opportunity itself. “Access to the materials and support needed to be able to pursue that business opportunity” is clearly about the opportunity.
Bids For My Meds and its attorney should probably have analysed the TYPE of reviews published here, and what the website is about. The review wasn’t a misinterpretaion of facts or a malicious attempt to smear reputation, it was simply a quite normal review.
I will be looking for business logic rather than for legal threats, i.e. I will try to identify THEIR correctness too. The business logic was missing and was replaced by marketing statements.
I was unable to identify a valid case. Their legal threats seems to be about personal feelings rather than about realities.
It was written by a lawyer to be sure, just not one working in an area that they either specialize in or bothered to do any research on.
Troy pointed out Mr. Longcore’s use of the words “Business Opportunity” in describing a MLM company, to a layman it’s just verbiage but lawyers should understand that specific words have specific meanings. I doubt Andrew investigated far enough to realize that just because someone writes in English it isn’t a for sure thing that they’re an American.
I’m not aware that BidforMyMeds has actually disclosed who the people running it are. The website and Michigan D.B.A. are both registered to Craig Berens and he is mentioned as CEO on one of the early calls. Several of those early calls were moderated by Paul Scheider so even if he doesn’t have an official title he will be awfully high in the recruiting pyramid.
In addition to Mr. Scheider and Larry Lalamedier (who Rico mentioned) there are a few other serial pimps who boarded this train very early on. Hamish Brownie and Steven Johnson both seem to dabble in legitimate MLM when there isn’t a scam of some sort for them to flog.
Hamish started the BidforMyMed’s thread over at MMG and his “Sponsor” name is “register.” He’s been a rep for companies like WowMobile, Javita and several others but he’s also played in AutoXTen, JubiRev, BlockBuzz, and still others. He has enough Zeek Rewards recruiting websites registered to his name that I suspect he needs some of his BfMM income to pay clawbacks.
Steven Johnson is a humble servant of God, and Mammon, when he isn’t proselytizing for his faith he’s pimping for his profit. ProMatrix Plus, RocketCyclerCash, YouGetPaidFast are just a sample of the sleazy little pyramids Steve pushes when he isn’t reading his Bible. His BFMM Sponsor name is lifetalk.
It’s pretty easy to see who the early adopters are here, if their marketing material was posted before or very soon after the start of the year they were in close to the ground floor.
When you look at the other “programs” these people have or are pushing it’s easy to see why a legitimate company like BidRx is very well advised to end any even secondary relationship with BidforMyMeds.
Now, now, Omri, they’ll claim you’re trying to extort them, like what Pigeon King stooges did to Dave “CrimeBusters Now” Thronton when he raised the alarm on PKI back in… 2007? 2008?
Too bad Minkow and company actually *did* run such an extortion racket… and ruined the reputation of us critics and skeptics forever.
Just means we have to be accurate in what we do write. 🙂
Streisand Effect. 🙂 If they want controversy, they will get it. Here’s hoping they learn better than Dr. McKee. 😀
General thought… Jumping on the “health care MLM” wasn’t new. Didn’t “Hi-Def Nation” try that last year? When it was revealed it was not even insurance, and the actual discount plan provider was revealed, that died a quick death.
They promised some sort of relaunch, but fizzled quickly after that. And nothing had been heard since.
If I have understood it correctly, he raised concerns long before “Farmers’ Weekly” did it (or whatever farmers’ magazine it was), so it was probably long before December 2007. But he didn’t communicate it correctly, i.e. he didn’t get the RESPONSE he wanted from MSM main stream media.
He wouldn’t have got much response here either, if that Pigeon King story had been now instead of 2007. He had most likely been permanently sent to the spam bin for hijacking the thread, going off-topic, “meaningless rant”, derail attempt, etc. 🙂
I focused on half of the letter in my previous post, and this is about the second half.
You haven’t contacted Bid For My Meds = you haven’t done ENOUGH to check the correctness of the article (in his opinion).
I can’t analyse subjective definitions like “enough”. He’s trying to prove his case on one of the criteria, but has failed to see what the review was about.
“Harmful” and “irreparable damage”. I can’t analyse that either, both are subjective measurements. I believe he has used “standard phrases” for the type of letter, i.e. that he’s trying to prove his case.
PROMOTIONAL PYRAMID DEFINITION
1. a chain recruitment system or plan
2. where participants gives consideration
3. for the prospected right to earn financial gains
4. that derives primarily from other participants
5. rather than from sale/consumption of goods/services
In Europe (as an example), it’s a part of Consumer Protection laws, e.g. Marketing Acts. It’s organized as a regulation, i.e. it’s part of misleading trade practice / deceptive trade practice.
The legal letter from the attorney has failed to analyse the correctness of the pyramid scheme conclusion. His case is primarily based on the assumption that the conclusion is wrong, but he has failed to analyse his client’s business model himself.
OZ. Check out this site and pricing on page 18:
Bidrx is always the cheapest with the state of WI and the members do not pay a fee that would make them cost more with the 7 dollars.
Rick… Nobody is arguing about legitimacy of BidRX.
it’s BidforMyMeds that we have problem with.
Please bark up the right tree.
You got referenced by KT, Oz!
We would have lost interest rather quickly in Bid For My Meds, so the C&D letter actually generated a “Streisand Effect” rather than protecting the company’s reputation.
The best way to handle the company’s reputation had probably been to make a few factual corrections where needed, not about the pyramid conclusion but about some other parts, e.g. to clarify the relation to BidRX.
The pyramid conclusion is difficult to attack when you’re running a recruitment driven business. The best defense should normally be to clarify that part instead of attacking it, e.g. clarify it if you actually do have a substantial retail sale.
Lawyers should analyse their clients’ defense systems before engaging in battle. In this case, the client had a rather weak case and a weak defense system. The C&D letter actually exposed weaknesses.
Saw that one yesterday. Get a load of Mr. “Reputation Management” in the comments.
Gilliam reduces all critical analysis to “attacks”. How cute.
There’s a problem when you’ll “fix” anyone’s reputation for money. Even if that means working to prevent access to accurate and vital information from those who would benefit from it (be it thorough due diligence or general awareness).
Ugh, I have to go wash the slime off now after reading his comment.
Oh dear god…
Listed as clients on MomentumFactor’s website (“momofactor.com/what-theyre-saying-2/”) are Terry “Rippln” Lacore, Bill “I thought hiring Dawn Wright-Olivares was a good idea” Starkey (iWowWe) and Jim “Quanta” Lutes.
The only reason these people need to clean up their reputations is due to people reading about what they’ve done in the industry. It’s got nothing to do with “attacks”.
Ugh more Jonathan Gilliam slime. I feel queasy.
Some general information to lawyers …
The pyramid scheme conclusions will be rather normal for recruitment driven business models. Most often the conclusion will be true and factual, the client has simply organized the business to be mainly about recruitment.
I have not seen any case here where anyone successfully have managed to attack that type of conclusion. I have seen a few good defensive strategies, but I have never seen any good offensive ones.
“RETAIL SALE, BUT …”
Pointing out a retail sale component is a good defensive strategy, if that component really exist and have a significant function, and it doesn’t have any obvious weaknesses.
* One defense attempt actually revealed a more fundamental flaw in the business, that the service they sold actually were based on faked results. If a client has a poor defense system like that, the best strategy is to avoid focusing on it.
The company there sold online directory listings, or actually “subscription codes” that could be resold to businesses and give them access to a 1 year listing in a business directory. It clearly had SOME retail sale, but when they focused too much on that part they also revealed a much more serious problem in the business.
If you’re a lawyer, check your client’s business for weak parts before sending any C&D. You can cause great harm to your client’s business by not checking it properly.
“RELATIVELY UNHARMED” CAN BE A VERY GOOD RESULT
I have found one very good strategy, where the company owner added factual information in the areas where he felt relatively “safe”, but avoided to engage in discussions about other parts of his business. It can be found in this thread:
I didn’t analyse the details there, only the fact that he managed to finish the discussion relatively unharmed. He avoided to engage in any direct battle. From my viewpoint, that’s a very good result on a platform where you don’t have any direct control over other posts.
I can probably point out some details, e.g. for WHY it is a good strategy and HOW it has to be performed.
The general rule should be “don’t draw attention towards the weak parts, but handle them in a relaxed way or avoid them”.
DON’T ASSUME ANYTHING
Don’t assume you’re meeting a weak and inexperienced opponent, or that an opponent will follow your rules. I never do that, I will analyse your rules but I will not follow them.
I didn’t have any clear plan, I just DID it, but what I actually did was something like this:
I tried to analyse the rules the lawyer seemed to be following, and I analysed them for weaknesses. He was very weak on the factual parts, he hadn’t really analysed his client’s business before sending the C&D.
His offensive strategy would most likely have failed, and I didn’t find any good defensive strategy either. I found “standard phrases” rather than a solid case. Some of the phrases even weakened his client’s arguments.
The fact that he didn’t analyse anything didn’t prevent me from doing it. Legal strategies will most likely fail if you assume people will follow specific rules.
A client should normally feel more satisfied if the attorney helps him to stay out of trouble, rather than if the attorney actively assists him going into it.
GERALD NEHRA’S “BELIEF SYSTEM”
A typical C&D received here was the one from Gerald Nehra on behalf of TelexFree in February 2013. It had so many logical flaws that I can’t cover it in a general summary.
OTHER TYPICAL FLAWS
A typical flaw is when company owners are using a “fake it till you make it” marketing strategy, and gradually have started to believe in their own ideas.
We received a C&D when a company had started to believe in its own ideas about “thousands of satisfied reps around the world”, when I had calculated the number to be a few hundred, and a member flee in the last few months.
The fact that they believed in something didn’t make it true. I will analyse the realities rather than the misleading statements.
Once again you appear to be overcomplicating what is a pretty simple scenario.
The client has paid his or her lawyer to send a cease and desist letter and the lawyer has done so.
It’s a practice that has been going on for years, designed to silence or at least intimidate bloggers and whistleblowers and doesn’t indicate the beginnings of a “battle” or further legal proceedings.
The only thing that has changed in recent times is a recognition by bloggers / posters of what constitutes “defamation and libel” and a non recognition by those attempting the intimidating of the “Streisand Effect”</I would contend there is rarely, if ever, the intention to go beyond the cease and desist letter,
ESPECIALLY not in cases involving shady MLM and online “opportunities” where the plaintiff will be required to expose the inner workings of the business under discussion in any resulting court action.
It will get him a certain type of clients, those who really HAVE some underlying problems they can’t fix, and believe that hiding them can be a solution. Terry LaCore, Bill Starkey and Jim Lutes obviously must have those types of problems, or else they wouldn’t have recommended him.
Jonathan Gilliam must have had many of them, enough to become specialised. He’s probably a “natural talent”, e.g. “he was born with a bad reputation”. 🙂
For the others, the problem is probably about personalities rather than reputation. The bad reputation is simply a reflection of something else.
Some of those uses are actually legitimate uses, but Jonathan Gilliam seems to attract clients with “special needs”. “Don’t worry, your bad name and reputation are in safe hands here”. 🙂
And now he seems to have found a new client in Bid For My Meds? That didn’t exactly surprise me.
It was general info designed for lawyers, company owners and others. It was about good or bad strategies rather than about laws. The MAIN focus was on the “alternative strategies”.
You’ll need to see that comment as an “extension” to the Kevin Thompson article, where he pointed out that sending C&D doesn’t make much sense if you don’t have a solid case. I shared some examples, and pointed out some typical flaws.
Rather than trying to teach your Grandmother how to suck eggs, wouldn’t it be more sensible to advise “lawyers, company owners and others” not to attempt to run shady MLM companies likely to attract the attention of bloggers such as Oz and to DEFINITELY not attempt to intimidate bloggers with the experience levels of an Oz with pointless cease and desist letters.
Unless, of course, said “lawyers, company owners and others” enjoy the notoriety and very public exposure such tactics are likely to bring them.
We are discussing BidForMyMeds.
No amount of reputation management or cease and desist letters or other strategies are going to remove the obvious flaw/s in its’ MLM structure.
Post #25 was designed for another audience than you, for potential visitors coming in from Kevin Thompson’s blog. Post #25 contains some “additional info”, e.g. other examples, other types of logic.
It wouldn’t have made any sense using your logic there. Kevin Thompson had already covered that type of logic, and I had already quoted it in post #22.
Kevin Thompson’s article has links to 3 different examples = MlmHelpdesk, BusinessForHome, BehindMLM (this article). Post #25 was designed for visitors coming in from that link, but for a much wider range of audiences than you assumed.
I applied some of the logic that he had used, e.g. that it won’t make much sense sending a C&D if you don’t have a solid case.
To be entirely correct, that should read:
“It wouldn’t have made any sense TO M_Norway using your logic there”
As you have repeatedly pointed out, you speak from a salesmans’ perspective, which is poles apart from someone who is used to looking at things from a fraudsters’ perspective.
The great majority of cease and desist letters OF THE TYPE UNDER DISCUSSION IN THIS THREAD are NOT sent with any intention of follow up, but as an attempt at intimidating the recipient and to distract readers’ attention away from the (fraudulent) subject at hand.
It is. I will offer additional info to the existing one. It was designed for the type of audience coming in from Kevin Thompson’s blog.
I used a different logic than that = “Don’t assume anything”. Don’t assume that people will follow some specific “rules”, or that they will see the case from exactly the same viewpoint as yourself.
It’s actually on that part most C&D letters will fail, e.g. when a company owner or a lawyer apply their own ideas to the facts. They will typically ignore some important details, and focus on some details they BELIEVE are the most relevant ones. I gave some examples for that.
We can look at Gerry Nehra’s C&D as an example.
Oz wrote a TelexFree review in July 2012, long before TelexFree became active in the US. It attracted mostly comments from affiliates in Brazil in the first 6 months.
TelexFree became more active in the US in January/February 2013. It also hired Gerald Nehra as an MLM attorney. He made a few minor changes to the business model, some types of pseudo compliance changes.
TelexFree initially had these “products”:
* AdCentral $299 (post 1 daily ad, earn $20 per week)
* AdCentral Family $1,375 (5 AdCentrals)
* 99TelexFree $49.95/month (software and VoiP subscription)
Oz interpreted the AdCentrals to be some type of investment, some type of Ponzi scheme component. AdCentral was clearly the main type of “product”. He also identified potential pyramid scheme issues, i.e. affiliates were paid commissions from selling AdCentrals.
Gerald Nehra added 10 “99TelexFree” software to the DEFINITION of the AdCentral, to make it look like affiliates actually bought some products for retail purposes.
He also changed the $20 weekly payout, to “pay people with software, and let the company buy back the software for $20 each week”. He also added some typical “don’t mention investment” rules to the program itself.
The C&D letter:
Gerald Nehra’s C&D letter was about the use of “Ponzi”. In his legal opinion, TelexFree was a legitimate MLM company selling VoiP subscriptions, rather than an investment based recruitment scheme.
Oz checked the facts on TelexFree’s website = whether or not they had stopped selling the AdCentrals. They were still promoting the AdCentrals.
I checked the changes they had made from many different perspectives. I assumed Nehra potentially could have some valid arguments. I also analysed some other weaknesses in his case. He didn’t identify the facts correctly, he focused on his own ideas rather than on the facts he must have had right in front of his own eyes.
GERALD NEHRA’S IDEAS
I believe he might have used some type of “MLM logic” when he made those changes, e.g. some ideas about “commisions based on movement of products are legal” and “commissions based on the movement of money are illegal”.
The changes didn’t make any sense from any business logic perspective, so I tried to see them from his viewpoint.
We will not automatically accept each and every “constructed legal defense system” lawyers are trying to put up for a company. Nehra knows perfectly well that we didn’t accept ZeekRewards’ “We’re not investing, we’re purchasing products”, or the “We’re getting paid for advertising” idea.
We will normally focus on the realities rather than on “constructed law theories”, e.g. I tried to look at the FUNCTIONS the minor changes had, if it made any sense from a business perspective to bundle the AdCentrals with 10 software, and whether the “pay in software” method made any sense. It didn’t make any sense.
We don’t believe in all types of legal ideas. Nehra should have focused on whether or not the conclusion was relatively CORRECT, rather than on his own ideas. He could have posted his own logic about those minor changes if they were important.
I’m not “assuming” anything.
How many cease and desist letters have you received or have personal knowledge of ??
With how many forum and blog owners who have received cease and desist letters of the type mentioned above have you communicated ??
How much have you researched the usage of cease and desist letters WRT MLM and online fraud and fraudsters ??
I applied Kevin Thompson’s logic to it. That’s why I described post #25 as an “extension” to that article, designed for potential visitors coming in from the link there.
He described one side of the problem, the discomfort he feels while hoping he’s been fed accurate information. And he’s not a fan of sending hollow threats.
I applied THAT logic to it. I didn’t apply my own ideas. I didn’t analyse anything about the majority of cease and desist letters of the type discussed in this thread. You’re asking for “wrong types of sources”.
I applied my own ideas on other parts of post #25, but not on that part.
Well, he’s a “reputation” manager. What can I say? Meh.
Time for another article. 🙂
Applying “your logic” to the KT letter is the distractor here. KT did not say that sending a C&D “won’t make much sense,” but only that sending one could have unintended consequences.
You embroidered the rest.
A C&D puts a party on notice. It can be intimidating. That alone justifies its use and why it may “make sense” regardless of whether the “case” is “solid” or not.
So what? I believe you have read something out of context here. How did you manage to interprete it like that? I applied some of Kevin Thompson’s logic to something.
Kevin Thompson’s article had a link to this article. I added something designed for potential visitors from that site, and I didn’t expect them to ask for a “Complete analysis of Kevin Thompson’s logic”. I used some of Kevin Thompson’s viewpoints, but not all of them.
You’re absolutely correct, I clearly used my own words. That was also my intention. What exactly did you EXPECT in that short statement? A complete resume?
….and nobody did…..but you’re right, he contends he’s not a big fan of hollow threats.
His typical Cease and Desist letters have been to affiliates raiding their downlines. That type of C&D is rather urgent, and the cases should normally be relatively clear.
It will be much worse to handle defamation types of C&D letters, the cases will typically be vague and poorly presented, with a lot of information that needs to be interpreted correctly and placed into a context.
A quick look at this blog will show hundreds of articles using terms like “pyramid”, “recruitment scam” and similar offending expressions, yet most people seems to accept it.
A lawyer will need to interpret that factor too, he can’t solely look at his own client’s case. He will need to interpret the website correctly, to see how that factor will affect his case.
I know MANY of those factors that may affect a case, and I usually know where to find those factors. I also know how to use them. I have also regularly practised using different factors.
The 3 C&D letters I know about here all have something in common.
* They have all poorly interpreted the relevant facts (they have tried to make their own descriptions of the facts support what they WANT to believe, so they have ignored important details).
* They have also been poorly prepared, e.g. extremely onesided. They assume their opponents will react in a specific way, and have not looked for any alternatives.
* They have all resulted in quite opposite results than they intended to produce, in more than one way. They can even have long term negative effect.
I believe most experienced people will prefer to avoid having their own legal strategies dissected and analysed for weak parts, quite different from my attempt to analyse this case (here I had serious problems understanding some missing parts in the logic).
That’s one of the reasons for why I do it, to get that type of training. It will also give me examples I can point to in a discussion, i.e. I won’t need to create any hypothetical scenarios.
Lawyers will need to give their clients SOMETHING when asked to send a C&D letter, their clients will request some types of results. I’m trying to identify “alternative strategies” they can offer that will give their clients exactly that.
(continued from post #25, #32, etc.)
MORE ABOUT NEHRA’S C&D LETTER
To place that letter into a context, we had an interesting post a few days before the letter, from the Managing Director in TelexFree, in the article “TelexFree under criminal investigation in Brazil”.
He must obviously have thought it was enough only to mention Nehra’s name. He got the answer he deserved from Oz and K. Chang. He even got some weight loss recommendations from me, as a solution for how to handle that “600 pound MLM attorney”.
The C&D letter popped up a few days later. But don’t come here and say that we didn’t give him correct advices, they would probably have worked better than his own ideas.
That situation can be interpreted in many different ways, so I won’t try to do it. But that Managinng Director has obviously misinterpreted a whole lot of factors, ranging from his position to our position to Nehra’s position.
Something he didn’t tell us was that promoters can generate their own fake customers directly from the back office, to qualify for the customer requirements.
Tim Whitfield MAY HAVE a position in a company or something, he MAY HAVE some position in his local community or whatever, he MAY HAVE a position among family and friends. If he want to KEEP those positions relatively unharmed, then he shouldn’t try to gamble with them.
The only thing he managed to reflect here was his own poor judgment skills. That can happen to all of us, so we let him get away with it (he received a joke rather than critical comments). I wouldn’t have used him as an example if he had posted a more normal comment, but here he’s clearly an important part of the story.
The same logic can also be applied to Gerry Nehra. He MAY HAVE some positions that are important to him and makes him feel something, but he can’t expect to bring those positions with him wherever he goes. If they are important to him, he should probably keep them safe in a locked closet rather than throwing them around.
TelexFree managed to find other uses for their “600 pound attorney”. He was heavily used in different types of marketing for a period of time, the area where he really has some value. He can clearly act like, walk like, talk like and dress like an attorney.
I have reviewed one of the marketing videos where he was acting as an attorney, and he clearly sounded convincing when he told people never to mention the word “investment”.
Any competent attorney can craft a cease and desist letter that is not “vague and poorly presented.”
Logic has no missing parts. If you start with premise A and wind up at conclusion B with missing parts in between you have jumped to a conclusion. There is no logic to that. gical.
Searched for: BIDFORMYMEDS
ID Num: 05398T
Entity Name: SPEED OF TRUST ENTERPRISES, INC.
Type of Entity: Domestic Profit Corporation
Resident Agent: CRAIG BERENS
Registered Office Address: 12720 WEGAL AVE KENT CITY MI 49330
Mailing Address: MI
Formed Under Act Number(s): 284-1972
Incorporation/Qualification Date: 12-3-2013
Jurisdiction of Origin: MICHIGAN
Number of Shares: 60,000
Year of Most Recent Annual Report:
Year of Most Recent Annual Report With Officers & Directors:
Status: ACTIVE Date: Present
I have mentioned 3 cease and desist letters, and here’s the third one, from Carbon Copy Pro / ProU (Jay Kubassek), March 2011.
I had estimated the number of members to be, very politely, less than 600 members in the whole world.
Jay Kubassek found a different solution to the problem a few weeks later, when he sent out an e-mail to the members. “Don’t read forums or blogs, don’t even read NEWS!”.
I pointed out 3 common factors in post #39. Here’s a few more.
* They typically have an ego to protect, e.g. a former “status” they believe still exist. They will look at that rather than at the correctness of the material.
* They must obviously believe that other people will be affected by the ideas they believe in themselves.
* They do what they FEEL is wise to do, rather than analysing different options before doing something.
* They have all been very “immediate reactions”, people don’t take some time to THINK before reacting.
* They have quite obvious logical flaws. They are “constructed” around subjective ideas, e.g. focused on small details rather than the whole.
* All these 3 C&D letters seems to have been initiated by “third parties”, e.g. being “dramatized” by someone to cause the reactions. Jay Kubassek was probably “confronted” by his own marketing claims about “tens of thousands members in 82 countries”, while the offending post was about member flee and a few hundred members total.
SUMMARY FOR POST #25 ETC.
All these posts are about “additional information” designed for potential visitors coming in from that specific link in Kevin Thompson’s article. I have first tried to identify briefly the TYPES of information we have.
* A few strategies people have used, to “defend” a company in comments. One of them was actually very good, and a few others can be worth mentioning.
* The 3 different C&D letters. They were all doomed to fail, and I have already covered most of the details.
* Defense strategies, built into how this website is organized. They are not designed to hide behind, e.g. to allow for defamation, but they are designed to be used as potential defense systems.
* Personal defense strategies. There are hundreds of posts containing different defense strategies / other types of strategies.
That’s the 4 types of “additional info” I have identified to be of some interest for people looking for that type of information, whether they’re lawyers, company owners or whatever they are.
The “immediate reaction” doesn’t seem to be a wise strategy to use. I don’t believe it’s a wise strategy for lawyers to recommend it either. The wisest strategy is actually to be relaxed, identify the case correctly, and identify some potential good strategies to use.
I will try to identify some of the IDEAS used in good strategies.
Some good strategic ideas.
CHOOSE A FUNCTIONAL ROLE, RATHER THAN A DYSFUNCTIONAL ONE
This website will allow for many different types of roles, e.g. “contributors”, “analysts”, “discussion participants” and a wide range of other roles. Some will give different results than others.
Some will most likely fail completely, e.g. the “nitpicker” strategy or the “Drama Queen” strategy. Functional roles are normally about a combination of social intelligence and some actual knowledge.
Neil Guess (link in post #25) managed to choose a relatively functional role as a “contributor” / “company owner”. He managed to balance between those two roles.
When people provide the information you ask for, even when it’s not exactly the information you were interested in, it will be very difficult to “attack” that role as a contributor. False information is easy to attack, but real one isn’t.
The focus should be on the idea itself rather than the details. Simply choose a more functional social role, but a real one you actually can fill. It’s not a step by step method, but a basic idea.
“Functional” is about how other people see it. Personal motivation and personal feelings may be in direct conflict with the functionality of a role. Some standard roles people have trained themselves for may fail completely.
* Gerald Nehra’s role as a “600 pound attorney” is one example for a dysfunctional role, when used incorrectly. It’s too easy to make jokes about that role.
* Even Kevin Thompson may have some dysfunctional ideas from time to time, but at least he’s looking into other types of solutions. The “weight” of the lawfirm’s letterhead isn’t a constant factor, it doesn’t have more weight than the “600 pound attorney” idea if the case is weak.
Bidformymeds.com site is down and it says for upgrades
There was an affiliate email about it last week. Apparently they’re shutting down for a week or so to “upgrade” both BidRx and BidForMyMeds’ respective websites.
OK Thanks OZ…..
I still like where bidformymeds is located or at least on the company filing in Michigan. It is on a bare land spot. I not sire about the company owner in the posting. Cannot find anything about him.
Bidformymeds will be back online next week form the call yesterday. Not sure if will still be a ponzi, but the bidrx will still be 7 dollars and the ponzi part 10 dollars is going to 20 dollars or so.
The ones that are in now will be founding memebers just to keep them inportant and happy.
I like BidRX. I don’t like BidforMyMeds because it’s basically a remora that sticks to BidRX. It’s a symbiote, at best, parasite at worst.
$20 for what? Even if BidsRX started charging and up front fee of $7 to use their service (instead of adding on the back end), there is a limited number of people who would pay that as straight customers. I was put on a medication last week and it is going to cost me $4 a month directly from my pharmacy. That’s less than it would cost to be a monthly customer.
How are they going to legally justify an additional $20 for something that (currently) can be signed up for free through BidsRX?
It’s been almost two weeks and the site is still down. It’s been down for over a month now. Do you really think it will come back up?
I don’t have a crystal ball but it has been closer to six weeks since the website has been up. I think it’s abundantly certain that what ever issues the company is facing are not technological in nature.
There’s a mixed blessing for a sleazy little quick hit pyramid game to tie themselves to a legitimate service like BidRx. Yes, they have a legitimate product but that relationship can come untied in a hurry.
It might take months to years for regulators to take action but BidRx’s legal department would well be earning their keep if they recommended severing BidRx’s relationship with BidforMyMeds.
Do I know that’s what has happened here? No. But if it hasn’t happened yet it will soon enough.
I hate to see a company die as any other, but I hate even more a company that can’t play by the rules. If they decided they can’t live while playing by the rules… so be it.
At the time the BidForMyMeds website went down, so too did BidRx. This was supposed to be for better integration or some such.
The BidRx website came back a relatively short time later, BidRx meanwhile is still down. BidRx removing BidForMyMeds from their system fits perfectly with only the BidRx website coming backonline and BidForMyMeds still AWOL.
Two months to implement “website changes”? Yeah… not buying it.
Bidformymeds will be back next week with buidrx and additional 20 dollars/family deal/month with some sort of call adoc online deal to be ponzi legal. We shall see.
They are back on-line. It’s one page with a video that basically says for $7 a month you can search a database and get bids on prescriptions. If you refer people, they will pay you. But that’s all it says. If you want any other information, you have to fill out a form and the ID of the person who referred you.
No mention of BidRX (whose site you can still register with for free).
Lol, it took them over a month of website development to put that up?
I wonder if they’re still offering the $17 pyramid scheme deal. Like you said there’s no mention of affiliate costs on the frontpage. Sneaky sneaky.
Infact due to the overall lack of information on the new site, BidForMyMeds looks even more shadier now.
They will be back going again tomorrow. It will now cost 20 dollars a month and not 7 dollars for the bidrx part. Then when they get approved and launch teladoc part it will cost more monthhly fees. Not sure how the ponzi payout will go.
Thanks for the update Rick.
I think all of this pretty much confirms the red flags I pointed out in the initial review.
$20 fixed for everyone negates retail (if there’s no separate offering and everyone is an affiliate), so it’ll be interesting to see how they’ve addressed that.
Is there still a market for that, now that Obamacare is in motion?
They are also going to add teladoc, a benefit program later on. I still think it is a ponzi with a 20 dollar monthly fee, when they are just resellers for bidrx. So where is the product is what i am asking. I don’t think there is any savings from what i have seen after all the drug chains discount programs and most people cannot wait for mail orders some of the time.
Bidformymeds.com is back going now and pretty much the same model as before, but changed the cost. It is now 7 dollars/month for bidrx member and mlm members is 20 dollars/month.
Uh, isn’t that what it was before? 7/20, with $20 doing nothing except qualifying affiliates to receive recruitment commissions?
It was 7 dollars and 10 dollars before. pretty much to be a ponzi member it want from 17 to 20 dollars and the site now is relaunched. You can check it out at bidformymeds.com
They have a benifit program coming and you will see it and it will add an additional monthly fee.
What are your thoughts on this new MLM company
Running like bidrx or bidformymeds