As I said, in the context of saying both things at once, one is forced to interpret the meaning as no substantive or meaningful relationship.
I think it’s actually kind of refreshing that he really uses the products in good faith. He’s not merely collecting a paycheck.
But I like Dial soap.
And even if they paid me a bunch of money (and a whole lot of free soap), that wouldn’t make me “involved” with the Dial Corporation in any meaningful way.
I guess my perspective comes from knowing paid speakers up close and personal. One of my teachers was a nationally-renowned coach. I saw him “write” books, and give speeches, and make product endorsements. All the kids on the team got free Nike stuff. But I didn’t think he was “invokved” with the Lustine auto group, even if they did give him a new Chevy every year.
Uh, yes it would if you're giving them speeches, appearing in videos, and telling everybody you love the product, while they pump money into your charities. Not even "10 years ago," but as recently as 2013.
Carson has apparently also published a whole bunch of books published within the year, all coming out strategically as soon as he entered national discourse, well, he and his wife, and is sitting on profits from paid speeches/appearances somewhere between 8 million and 30 million dollars alone.
Now this sounds like someone who knows how to make money by selling celebrity. But we're supposed to believe that he's just giving speeches out of the goodness of his own heart? He really believes Glyconutrients could have cured his cancer, but he just decided to get the operation because he was afraid that people-- less diligent than he in taking the nutrients regularly-- might risk their lives? Come on. How gullible do you have to be?
How the hell are you defining "involved" by the way? Totally going over my head here. What is the definition of "involved" and "not involved"?