The GLP-1 Website Factory — Part 3 | ShamelessProfits Investigation
In our previous investigations, we uncovered one of the more remarkable spectacles in the booming online weight-loss industry: three branded medical websites displaying the exact same 14,532 customer reviews, two supposedly distinct telehealth businesses recycling identical patient testimonials and photographs, and a collection of credibility claims that seemed to have been assembled by someone with a copy-and-paste addiction.
VelvetRx, Rejuve Meds, and VivaRX weren’t merely borrowing design inspiration from one another. Their medical-intake pages used the same underlying software, right down to matching review widgets. Rejuve and VivaRX went considerably further, displaying the same named patients, photographs, and customer experiences, with one testimonial conveniently rewritten to praise whichever company happened to be hosting it.
That raised an obvious question: Who was supplying the machinery that allowed these supposedly independent medical businesses to appear so suspiciously interchangeable?
The answer led us to a Florida company called Rimo Health, which has discovered a rather profitable-sounding proposition for America’s aspiring healthcare entrepreneurs. Forget spending years building medical infrastructure, contracting physicians, integrating pharmacies, and navigating complicated regulatory requirements. Rimo advertises a ready-made operation that can be configured and launched under your own brand in approximately two weeks.
The company doesn’t simply sell a website builder. It supplies the operational infrastructure for an entire telehealth business, from the moment a customer encounters an advertisement to the moment a prescription is routed to a pharmacy and a recurring payment lands in the merchant’s account.
And when questions arise about the truthfulness of the claims displayed on those websites? Well, Rimo’s published terms have a particularly convenient answer to that problem.
The merchant is responsible.
Welcome to the GLP-1 website factory, where the medical infrastructure is ready-made, the marketing can apparently be cloned, and the responsibility is parceled out among enough separate companies to give an accountant a nervous breakdown.
Follow the Software: The Connection Was Hiding in Plain Sight
We traced the underlying infrastructure through public DNS records and the source code of the medical-intake forms.
The intake subdomains for VelvetRx, Rejuve Meds, and VivaRX all point to the same destination: cname.rimo.co.
That’s not a coincidence of similar web design. It’s a technical connection showing that the businesses are using infrastructure operated through Rimo.
| Branded website | Rimo-connected domain |
|---|---|
| VelvetRx | join.velvetrx.com |
| Rejuve Meds | try.rejuvemeds.com |
| VivaRX | try.vivarx.org |
| HeroMD | try.heromd.us |
| Wellvia | my.getwellvia.com |
| RIVO Health | my.rivohealth.co |
The last three are additional examples of Rimo-connected infrastructure; their inclusion does not mean they share the particular review claims found on VelvetRx and Rejuve.
Our source-code examination revealed that VelvetRx and Rejuve use the same medical-intake application build, with the same underlying components and virtually identical questionnaire structures. VivaRX’s configuration is even more revealing: its branded intake uses Rejuve’s underlying store account.
But the most extraordinary shared feature remains that magnificent number displayed near the top of the forms.
14,532 reviews.
Exactly the same figure on three branded medical-intake experiences. The same five-star presentation. No publicly identified underlying collection of 14,532 individual reviews substantiating the claim.
The number is present in the delivered HTML, but its original source remains unidentified. We have not established whether it is a default supplied by Rimo, a configurable field populated by merchants, or a figure retrieved from an actual review database.
That’s precisely why Rimo belongs at the center of this investigation.
The platform operator is in a position to explain how the review widget works, whether the number is a standard configuration value, and how multiple brands came to display the same impressive claim.
If Rimo supplied the number, it should explain where it came from. If individual merchants supplied it, Rimo should explain how the same unsupported-looking statistic ended up circulating through its medical-intake system.
Either way, we’re no longer dealing with three isolated marketing oddities. We’re examining a shared technology platform powering the advertisements and transactions of multiple medical storefronts.
Your Very Own Medical Empire in 14 Days
Rimo’s sales pitch is almost breathtaking in its simplicity.
On its Launch a Telehealth Brand in Two Weeks page, the company compares building a healthcare business independently—which it says commonly takes nine to twelve months—with launching through its own platform.
With Rimo, the advertised timeline is approximately 14 days.
For a platform fee starting at $2,500 per month, Rimo says it can configure the infrastructure needed for a new business to begin accepting customers under its own branding.
The company advertises licensed-provider coverage across all 50 states, more than ten integrated compounding pharmacies, medical-intake questionnaires, patient portals, prescription routing, billing systems, subscription management, and assistance obtaining the LegitScript certification frequently required by major healthcare advertising platforms.
Rimo claims more than 70 brands already use its platform.
Think about that business model.
An entrepreneur no longer needs to independently assemble every component of a medical-commerce operation. The software is already built. The patient-intake infrastructure is waiting. The clinical network is coordinated. The pharmacies are integrated. The billing engine is running. Much of the regulatory paperwork can be handled through the platform’s onboarding process.
The entrepreneur’s primary challenge becomes attracting customers and generating sales.
Rimo’s own marketing puts the division of labor quite plainly: the platform handles the backend while the brand concentrates on customer acquisition.
For someone experienced in e-commerce advertising, the proposition is irresistible. Instead of selling ordinary consumer goods, you can create a medical storefront and compete for customers in one of the hottest pharmaceutical markets in the country.
There is nothing inherently wrong with building software that reduces administrative costs. Telehealth technology can legitimately improve access to medical care.
But this is not an ordinary software platform helping an established medical practice manage appointments.
Rimo explicitly markets the ability to launch entirely new branded telehealth businesses, quickly, using shared infrastructure. That makes the standards governing the merchants, their advertising, and their clinical partners extraordinarily important.
Because the public-facing website can look like a substantial, independent healthcare organization even when much of its operational foundation is supplied by someone else.
And as we’ve already demonstrated, the appearance of an established healthcare organization can be assembled using remarkably questionable marketing materials.
Who Actually Prescribes the Medication?
One of the most important discoveries is how Rimo divides responsibility among the businesses involved.
The individual merchant operates the consumer-facing brand and receives customer payments. Rimo supplies the software and coordinates the provider and pharmacy networks. Independent licensed clinicians are supposed to review patients and make prescribing decisions. Licensed pharmacies prepare or dispense medication and arrange fulfillment.
Rimo’s provider-network documentation says patient questionnaires are routed to clinicians based on the patient’s state and selected treatment. The process is designed to be asynchronous when appropriate, meaning a clinician may review a questionnaire without conducting a live appointment.
If the clinician determines that treatment is appropriate, the resulting prescription moves into Rimo’s pharmacy-routing system.
The pharmacy documentation describes an integrated network in which orders can be directed to different pharmacies according to the medication and patient location. Shipping updates and fulfillment status then flow back into the merchant’s dashboard and the patient’s portal.
In practical terms, a branded website can sit on top of a much larger system operated by multiple businesses.
One Rimo-connected company, StagMD, describes this structure with unusual clarity. Its public disclosures identify ECOM84 LLC as the consumer-facing business, Rimo as the intake and fulfillment coordinator, Dr Telx and affiliated professional medical practices as the clinical network, and licensed pharmacies as the businesses responsible for compounding and dispensing.
StagMD even names the professional corporations through which its clinicians operate.
That’s useful transparency. It also demonstrates the extraordinary number of distinct commercial and professional relationships that can exist behind one apparently simple medical storefront.
But the arrangement raises an essential question: Who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the representations attracting patients are truthful?
The merchant advertises the service. The platform handles much of the operational pipeline. The clinician makes the treatment decision. The pharmacy dispenses the medication.
If the original advertisement is deceptive, every participant can point toward another piece of the process.
There may be contractual answers to who is responsible, but consumers are not shopping for a contractual diagram. They’re trusting a business that presents itself as a medical provider.
They deserve to know who’s treating them, who’s dispensing their medication, and who stands behind the promises used to sell it.
The Money Is Yours. So Is the Liability, Apparently.
Rimo makes another point of pride in its business model: the platform says merchants retain control of their payment accounts.
Under its advertised arrangement, the patient pays through the merchant’s own Stripe account or another supported payment gateway. The merchant receives the revenue directly, and Rimo charges a separate platform fee rather than taking a percentage of each sale.
That is commercially attractive. Merchants retain control of their customer relationships and purchase histories, while the medical records and prescribing relationship remain with the professional clinical entities.
Rimo also advertises a sophisticated recurring-billing system designed to handle subscriptions, payment retries, and future charges.
For a medical business selling subscription treatments, recurring payments can be enormously valuable. Each new patient is not necessarily a single transaction but a potential stream of continuing revenue.
The entire process is engineered to make it easier for merchants to acquire customers, sell programs, and manage the revenue generated by those relationships.
Then we examined Rimo’s actual Terms of Service.
And discovered a fascinating contrast between what the platform promises to operate and what it promises to verify.
Rimo Doesn’t Pre-Screen Merchant Materials. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Buried in the company’s published terms is an unusually important provision.
Rimo says it does not pre-screen materials submitted through its services.
It reserves the right to refuse or remove material but does not commit to reviewing everything before publication.
Elsewhere, the agreement places responsibility for the merchant’s offerings, disclosures, pricing, transactions, and legal compliance on the merchant itself.
There’s the beautiful elegance of the arrangement.
Rimo sells the software necessary to operate a telehealth business, advertises managed provider and pharmacy infrastructure, and assists businesses through certification paperwork. But the terms allocate responsibility for the merchant’s customer-facing materials back to the business using the platform.
Contractual allocation of responsibility is normal in software services. It doesn’t automatically excuse a platform from every legal obligation, and it doesn’t prove Rimo knew particular advertising claims were false.
But the contrast is extraordinary when viewed alongside the evidence we’ve uncovered.
Three branded intake experiences display the same 14,532-review claim. The platform supplies the shared application. And the platform’s public terms say merchant materials are not pre-screened.
One wonders what would have to appear in a marketing component before anyone decided it deserved a closer look.
Would a million imaginary customers qualify? Fifty thousand suspiciously identical reviews? A medical endorsement from an institution that never heard of the company?
Perhaps the number simply needs to become sufficiently ridiculous to trigger a compliance alarm.
And there’s another clause worth noting.
Rimo’s terms expressly contemplate that its own employees or contractors may also operate businesses using the platform, including businesses that compete with other Rimo customers.
That is not proof of improper conduct or undisclosed ownership of any particular storefront.
But it makes one thing obvious: Rimo’s ecosystem is not necessarily divided neatly between an entirely detached software supplier and wholly unrelated merchants.
We need to know who operates these brands, who controls the content templates, who receives the money, and whether any relationships between merchants and platform personnel affect the oversight of their claims.
RIVO Health: Where a 96.8% Success Rate Doesn’t Mean What You Think
Our investigation also led to RIVO Health, another telehealth brand with a patient portal running through Rimo.
RIVO’s homepage boasts an impressive collection of statistics: more than 115,000 members, tens of thousands of social-media followers, and a striking 96.8% success rate nationwide.
A 96.8% success rate displayed on a website marketing medical treatments sounds remarkable.
Success at what, exactly?
Losing weight? Improving metabolic health? Achieving a medically significant reduction in obesity? Completing treatment?
Not according to RIVO’s own fine print.
Its disclaimer explains that the 96.8% figure measures recent order fulfillment and delivery performance, not clinical outcomes or patient weight-loss results.
Read that again.
The website prominently advertises a success rate in the context of medical treatment. The explanatory language says the number relates to successful order fulfillment.
Apparently, the revolutionary breakthrough is getting the package delivered.
Under that definition, a patient could receive medication that does absolutely nothing for their condition, and the shipment could still count toward the company’s advertised success statistic.
Congratulations. The delivery worked. Medicine has been conquered.
And the numerical theater doesn’t stop there.
RIVO’s homepage contains image descriptions referring to Fridays, another telehealth brand. Some of its marketing material also retains references to Fridays membership benefits.
It’s another case of leftover branding appearing in a supposedly independent medical storefront.
The company’s disclosures further describe decisions by “Rimo Health clinicians,” even though Rimo’s own terms distinguish the software platform from the licensed medical professionals actually responsible for providing care.
That discrepancy calls for a straightforward explanation of the identity of the medical group responsible for patients.
None of this proves that every RIVO claim is false. But it demonstrates how easily impressive-looking medical statistics, recycled creative assets, and confusing provider descriptions can coexist on a polished telehealth storefront.
The problem isn’t merely that these websites share software.
It’s that their marketing repeatedly creates impressions of medical credibility or success that require a very different explanation once somebody reads the fine print.
LegitScript Certification: Another Convenient Service on the Assembly Line
One of Rimo’s most prominent selling points is its assistance obtaining LegitScript healthcare certification.
LegitScript is a private certification business whose approval is widely recognized by advertising platforms and payment providers dealing with regulated healthcare merchants.
Rimo advertises itself as a LegitScript enterprise partner and says it typically helps brands obtain certification within seven to fourteen days. The company prepares applications, handles follow-up questions, and coordinates the submission process.
LegitScript ultimately controls whether certification is granted. Rimo doesn’t have the authority to simply approve its own customers.
But Rimo’s commercial message is unmistakable: obtaining the credential necessary to advertise medical services is another task the platform is prepared to handle for the entrepreneur.
And there is an especially interesting piece of history here.
LegitScript itself previously published a promotional case study featuring Rimo Health.
The article, titled Built to Withstand the Freeze: Rimo Health’s Formula for Merchant Stability, presented Rimo as an example of how certification can help telehealth businesses obtain payment-processing and advertising access.
In that case study, Rimo representative Cameron Mema—identified there as CEO—described a GLP-1 client whose merchant account had been frozen over misleading advertising.
According to Mema, the client was reinstated in fewer than ten days, with its LegitScript certification and compliance documentation helping resolve the problem.
What an extraordinary selling point.
The company didn’t merely promote certification as evidence of regulatory compliance. Its representative described how that credential helped a customer recover after an advertising-related payment freeze.
That account was Rimo’s own characterization of an unnamed client’s experience. The article did not independently establish the circumstances behind the freeze or that the advertising had been lawful.
But the anecdote captures the commercial role of certification beautifully.
The certification isn’t merely a reassuring symbol displayed to consumers. It can function as a crucial credential for accessing advertising networks and maintaining payment relationships.
And that makes the integrity of the certification process extraordinarily important.
The original LegitScript case study is no longer available at its former URL, but an archived July 2026 copy preserves the article.
We’ll examine LegitScript’s certification practices, its business relationship with Rimo, and its documented failures of oversight in the next installment.
But first, there’s something considerably uglier in Rimo’s recent history.
CBS News Already Found Rimo in the Unapproved-Drug Pipeline
On September 16, 2026, CBS News published an investigation by reporter Daniel Gilbert examining telehealth businesses promoting retatrutide, an experimental weight-loss drug developed by Eli Lilly.
Retatrutide had not received FDA approval. The FDA has also stated that it cannot lawfully be used in ordinary pharmacy compounding under federal law.
CBS documented a sprawling online market for the experimental medication, including businesses advertising it through social-media platforms while displaying LegitScript certification.
The investigation identified more than 80 businesses that promoted retatrutide while touting LegitScript certification, with at least 35 displaying certification on pages marketing the drug.
And Rimo Health appeared in the reporting.
CBS found that Rimo had hosted retatrutide intake questionnaires for multiple companies. Those forms were subsequently taken offline during the period examined by the reporters.
The investigation also noted that LegitScript had previously featured Rimo in promotional material emphasizing compliance and business stability.
When CBS sought comment, Rimo CEO Saamir Mithwani characterized the business as a software provider and said it had no information to provide on the matter.
That was quite a response from a company advertising an end-to-end telehealth infrastructure, managed provider-network coordination, pharmacy integrations, and help navigating healthcare certification.
The company was not accused in that reporting of personally manufacturing the experimental drug. Hosting intake questionnaires does not mean Rimo itself dispensed medication or issued prescriptions.
But the documented role is significant.
The same company promoting ready-made compliant telehealth infrastructure had supplied intake technology used by businesses advertising a drug that federal regulators say cannot lawfully be compounded.
And Rimo was hardly the only company implicated in the broader investigation.
CBS found that numerous certified sellers had continued promoting prohibited products, sometimes until questions from reporters prompted changes.
This wasn’t an abstract concern about potential weaknesses in online healthcare oversight. It was an actual investigation documenting unauthorized drug promotion passing through supposedly trustworthy commercial channels.
You can read the September 16 CBS News investigation here.
Then, in October 2026, CBS published additional reporting on products marketed as retatrutide, including laboratory testing that identified contamination and a sample that apparently did not contain the expected peptide.
Those particular purchases were not shown to have originated through Rimo. But they demonstrate why the identity of prescribing professionals, dispensing pharmacies, and the medicines being supplied is more than a technical concern.
When the product involves prescription or experimental drugs, failures of oversight can have consequences far beyond a misleading online advertisement.
Meet the Business Behind the Software
Florida corporate records identify Rimo Health LLC, formed on February 25, 2025.
The company’s registered manager is CYFR Holdings LLC. Its current public filing lists a St. Petersburg, Florida business address.
Saamir Mithwani has been publicly identified as a Rimo founder and was identified by CBS News as the company’s CEO in September 2026.
Rimo’s outward-facing materials make ambitious claims about the size and capabilities of its platform, including more than 70 client brands, nationwide provider coverage, and numerous pharmacy integrations.
The Florida records establish the legal entity and its registered management structure. They do not reveal the full beneficial ownership or financial arrangements behind every business using the service.
Those distinctions matter because our investigation has uncovered an expanding ecosystem of branded healthcare businesses whose commercial operations overlap through the same platform.
Some clearly identify their medical-provider and pharmacy relationships. Others use more generic descriptions. Some present remarkable customer statistics. Some retain branding from entirely different healthcare businesses.
And some, as we’ve shown, use identical review claims and recycled patient testimonials.
Rimo’s executives and merchants should be able to explain who supplied those representations, how they were verified, and what corrective procedures exist when inaccurate content appears.
Who Checks the Claims Before Patients See Them?
This is the fundamental problem with the system we’ve uncovered.
Rimo’s platform is designed to make the operational side of telehealth enormously convenient. A brand can be configured quickly, the patient completes a questionnaire, a clinician reviews the submitted information, a pharmacy fulfills an approved prescription, and a billing engine manages subsequent payments.
For legitimate operators following the law, that efficiency may be valuable.
But efficiency is not the same thing as accountability.
The system also allows healthcare merchants to publish compelling, conversion-focused marketing designed to persuade consumers to spend money on prescription treatments.
And our investigation has documented what happens when the credibility claims attached to those storefronts demand scrutiny.
We found repeated 14,532-review figures across multiple branded intake forms. We found Rejuve and VivaRX using identical named patient testimonials and photographs, including a testimonial that changes the medical business being praised. We found RIVO describing an operational delivery metric as a success rate while displaying other enormous, unverified public-facing statistics.
Those issues are not evidence that every Rimo customer is dishonest or that Rimo personally authored every advertisement.
They are evidence that a platform supplying the machinery behind medical commerce has clients whose public marketing raises serious questions.
Rimo advertises that it helps businesses navigate compliance. Its terms say it does not pre-screen merchant content. LegitScript provides a certification process recognized by major advertisers. And CBS has already documented Rimo-hosted questionnaires used to promote an experimental drug prohibited from ordinary commercial compounding.
At what point does the company supplying the entire operational pipeline take responsibility for ensuring its tools aren’t being used to mislead patients?
A business cannot answer every serious criticism by declaring itself a software company and pointing toward the next name on the organizational chart.
Nor can a merchant excuse questionable advertising by saying it used a third-party template.
The people who create the claims, the businesses publishing them, and the organizations responsible for their review each have their own obligations.
The existence of multiple contractors doesn’t make those obligations disappear.
The Questions Rimo Needs to Answer
There are several straightforward questions at the center of this investigation.
First, who supplied the 14,532-review figure displayed across VelvetRx, Rejuve Meds, and VivaRX? Is it embedded in a shared template, entered through a merchant-controlled setting, or generated from an actual database? What verifiable reviews support it?
Second, what marketing-content safeguards operate within Rimo’s software? If merchants can configure fabricated-looking reviews, misleading treatment statistics, and unsupported medical claims, what mechanisms detect those practices before patients encounter them?
Third, what checks apply to the medications offered through the platform? CBS’s documentation of Rimo-hosted retatrutide questionnaires makes that question particularly urgent. Who determines whether an offering may lawfully be prescribed and compounded, and what prevents prohibited products from being configured into an intake form?
Fourth, which medical organizations are providing care? The company markets access to a provider network, but patients should be able to identify the actual licensed medical practices and pharmacies responsible for their treatment.
Finally, what exactly does Rimo do when preparing a LegitScript application? Does it review the truthfulness of the merchant’s public advertising, or merely assemble the compliance documents necessary to get the application through the process?
Those questions aren’t rhetorical decorations. They’re the difference between legitimate healthcare infrastructure and a system whose commercial capabilities can outpace its controls.
The Website Factory Is Real. The Accountability Is What Needs Proving.
Rimo Health has built or assembled a platform capable of supporting multiple branded telehealth businesses, coordinating significant parts of the patient journey, and helping merchants launch quickly.
The company openly advertises those capabilities. Our technical investigation independently confirms that multiple brands use its infrastructure.
What remains deeply troubling is the quality and provenance of some of the claims appearing across the businesses connected to that system.
The identical review counts didn’t materialize out of thin air. Someone supplied or configured the figure. The duplicated patient testimonials didn’t rewrite themselves. Someone copied them. The questionable success statistics didn’t spontaneously appear on a medical homepage. Someone chose how to present them.
And the retatrutide questionnaires reported by CBS didn’t host themselves.
Somewhere in this chain are actual people making decisions about what medical products can be marketed, what credibility claims can be displayed, and what representations are acceptable when trying to separate patients from their money.
The technology may automate the business, but it doesn’t automate away responsibility.
Rimo’s most compelling sales pitch is that a medical brand can be assembled in two weeks. Our investigation raises a more uncomfortable question: can an established medical reputation be assembled just as quickly using reusable marketing components that nobody adequately verifies?
A platform that handles patient acquisition, medical intake, prescription routing, pharmacy integrations, and subscription billing is not a trivial participant in the business of online healthcare.
It’s part of the foundation.
And if that foundation is supporting businesses with misleading claims, the answer cannot simply be to point upward at the advertising agency, downward at the merchant, sideways at the pharmacy, and disappear behind a software disclaimer.
The GLP-1 website factory has been exposed.
Now comes the question of who certifies the factory.
Because Rimo advertises another remarkable convenience: helping these businesses obtain the credential that allows them to advertise medical products on some of the world’s largest digital platforms.
That credential comes from LegitScript.
And the deeper we looked into LegitScript’s relationship with Rimo, the more questions emerged about what its coveted seal of approval actually guarantees.
In Part 4: LegitScript’s Seal of Approval — The Certification Machine That Missed the Warning Signs.
About This Investigation
This is Part 3 of The GLP-1 Website Factory, an investigative series published by ShamelessProfits.com.
The reporting is based on publicly available corporate records, website source code, DNS records, Rimo’s own commercial and legal documentation, public merchant disclosures, archived LegitScript materials, and CBS News reporting published in September and October 2026.
Rimo provides software and coordinates third-party services; the records reviewed do not establish that Rimo Health LLC itself prescribes or compounds medication. Nor do shared software relationships establish that Rimo owns its customer brands or created each merchant’s advertising claims.
The organizations and individuals discussed are invited to supply documentation, corrections, and responses to the findings presented.
Sources and Documentation
- Rimo Health — Official Website
- Rimo — Launch a Telehealth Brand in Two Weeks
- Rimo — White-Label Telehealth Platform
- Rimo — Terms of Service
- Rimo — Nationwide Provider Network
- Rimo — Pharmacy Integrations
- Florida Division of Corporations — Rimo Health LLC
- StagMD — About and Medical Operating Structure
- RIVO Health — Official Website
- VelvetRx — Medical Intake
- Rejuve Meds — Medical Intake
- VivaRX — Medical Intake
- LegitScript — Archived Rimo Health Customer Spotlight
- CBS News — A Trusted Seal Made These Websites Look Legit (September 16, 2026)
- CBS News — Laboratory Testing of Products Marketed as Retatrutide (October 21, 2026)
- FDA — Concerns About Unapproved GLP-1 Drugs
