:::"The simple reality is he's wrong on his claim about research". Therein lies the problem in a nutshell. You don't seem to understand WP:OR and other very basic WP principles. Your argument boils down to a plea that the source needs to be denigrated with a qualifier of some sort simply because you don't think he's qualified and you think he's wrong. So, no, I don't think what you are proposing is either pertinent or fair. I also don't recognize that he had a COI with respect to his comments in the Forbe's article, and you already acknowledged the issue about improper synthesis. I think this is a massive overreach and a waste of time. If you were writing a WP article on Alamda, then it would be worth including the details about his corporate experience. But what you are proposing for the USANA article involves unilterally and arbitrarily denigrating a source that was vetted by a reputable news publication/journalist that considered Almada to be an expert, as have several other high-level sources (eg, the New York Times, FTC, etc...). These sources apparently do not consider Almada to have had a conflict of interest when it comes to such matters, and Forbe's specifically listed his corporate position at the time and cited his 30 years of relevant expereience. And if he is a founder/CEO of 2 other companies but you have no evidence that these position predate the Forbe's article, why even bother mentioning it? Trying to torpedo a source proactively? I disapprove of such tactics and the circular arguments. And if he's a CEO of 3 companies as you suggest, why would you argue about his credibility when it comes to the economics of nutritional products? That would, again, obviously make him imminently qualfified in such matters. There's no gray area to the issue here; it's black and white.