In Case This Article Makes You Wonder, At All. . . .

I declare that this site receives no sponsorship, free product, nor even free data-streams, in return for anything written here. I do not use any of the medications mentioned on this site -- nor do I have any persistent medical conditions which otherwise might be treatable, or treated, with any such medications, were I inclined to go the homeopathic route (which route, in general, I am almost never inclined to take -- except for some honey-lemon tea for the rare sore throat). So, these are solely my opinions, unless otherwise noted (as being contributed by Salmon, Wolf or PM, for example).

Just so we're clear (as if it weren't painfully obvious), there is none of this going on, here:

. . . .But unlike postings in most journalism outlets or independent review sites, most companies can be assured that there will not be a negative review: if she does not like a product, she simply does not post anything about it.

The proliferation of paid sponsorships online has not been without controversy. Some in the online world deride the actions as kickbacks. Others also question the legitimacy of bloggers’ opinions, even when the commercial relationships are clearly outlined to readers.

And the Federal Trade Commission is taking a hard look at such practices and may soon require online media to comply with disclosure rules under its truth-in-advertising guidelines. . . .

Indeed. A rather goofy comment in the Vertex thread, below, reminded me that I ought to make this clear, perhaps once very year: I own no Vertex, Abbott, Merck, AstraZeneca or J&J stock, either -- nor am I short any of these names (including Schering-Plough), at the moment.