This is an example of how even though there was no evidence to support the claim of overt political bias, the false news that there was bias is what tends to stick in the misinformation realm, dispite the lack of evidence.

This makes me think of participatory misinformation because the spreading of misinformation involves not only people on social media, but also politicians and pundits. They all feed into each other.

While the main point of this article is the discussion about how this MLM was selling a potentially dangerous product, under the ruse of it being some sort of cure-all, but this note about how more than 99% of MLM sellers lose money is also important. Not only do people make wild claims about the product itself, but there is also generally a lot of misinformation surrounding how much money people can make if they join a MLM. People are often told that by selling a MLM product that they can make a lot of money while working from home, while in reality very few people involved with MLM's make money, and the majority of them actually lose money. So this misinformation can be damaging for people not only physically, but also financially.

It is pretty insane to me how people will see an advertisement for what is essentially a bag of dirt, and actually think that it is worthy of "researching" and purchasing, even with its priciness. It ties into the whole confirmation bias/echo chamber idea, because i'm sure the "research" this woman did, didn't actually consist of any scientific evidence, but most likely just other people on Facebook, or similar internet platforms who are just as susceptible to MLM's.