In my opinion, there is nothing in the constitutive nature of a "forum" that precludes certain members with an interest in one product or another discussing that product - and in fact, I feel part of the purpose of these very forums is to connect one party with a vested interest in selling the product (the seller) with another whom has a vested interest in purchasing the product (the buyer) to ensure a bilateral flow of information. To preclude that dynamic is to go against the very type of open discussion you are speaking about.But the point is that we are talking about a forum here. We are talking about a place where independent people get together and discuss their experiences with products. It is not the place to have people who are not independent promoting products. If I were on a forum where individuals were discussing CPAs and I was pushing my firm and had others on that forum who had a vesting interest in the firm promoting the firm, then that would be INAPPROPRIATE and against the primary purpose of the forum.
Further, I feel the example of your firm misses on a key point: namely, that the "forum" in which your customers seek expert opinion is your firm's offices, whereas these forums are indeed the most accessible offices for a large proportion of the supplement buying community - and as a result, assistance from those most knowledgeable on the products themselves is sought and given in this manner freely. If the medium of contact between insurance firm customers and insurance firms was primarily internet forums, then, if by default only, you would most certainly discuss the virtues of your firm's products in that manner. You are blurring the lines of distinction, here.
Finally, if it was the case that "bias" necessarily meant falsity, as you imply here, than I would have to concede your general point; but it does not, and I would be interested if you could highlight where you feel myself, Borobulker, or strategicmove were overtly and shamelessly bias to the point where our opinions about USPlabs' products should be precluded as 'valid' outright.
While I am quite obviously bias about USPlabs, I would also claim that I hardly make serious, product-related posts without providing a) a reasonable scientific justification for doing so and b) openly discussing any challenges to that opinion with provision of evidence, and more importantly, explanations of that evidence which can or ought to give the challenger a certain assurance that I am not, "making **** up."