I was head-hunted a while back from Wayfair, and I felt that it was too good to be true: 1. high pay for remote work, 2. small teams, and 3. working on interesting tech (I think it was an AI furniture preview, like Amazon has). I ultimately decided against Wayfair because I had the feeling that helping a company sell predominately low-quality Chinese furniture to unassuming Americans would further enlarge the void in my soul, and I would be working far too much. Perhaps for a year or two, it would have been a dream come true, if I didn't want to have a life outside of work...
I have taken a lot of these in the past, and the label "pseudoscientific" is unwarranted. The "writer" cherrypicks and generalizes data to discount it, but if you want to understand the mechanism of, say, Ashwagandha, you probably should spend a few hours reading research and meta-analyses and not spending 10 minutes on Google to decide if it's "good" or "pseudoscience".
Should these companies not be allowed to advertise and distribute products that might help some and might hurt others? Should tech writers write health articles when they don't know what they're talking about?
Government lies, aka statistics, conveniently ignore the cost of high quality items when doing averages. If you are buying eggs as a health conscious person, you know not to buy $1/dozen eggs any more because industry producers have made them low cost by reducing quality, feeding chickens soy and the cheapest excuse for food. The pastured ones are 5-10x the cost and the quality is night and day. US government conveniently views these things as staples, but they are not.