> It should be noted that the product is still sold today, but in a bottle that does not give you a "Shock in the Shower".
Based on the depth/access to information presented, the writer was likely an employee or bought on for the investigation. So they probably didn't want to embarrass their employer. (Also the article is from 1997, so it was 19 years ago from their perspective)
> It should be noted that the product is still sold today, but in a bottle that does not give you a "Shock in the Shower".
Based on the depth/access to information presented, the writer was likely an employee or bought on for the investigation. So they probably didn't want to embarrass their employer. (Also the article is from 1997, so it was 19 years ago from their perspective)