GoKawiilSign up to see the future, today Can’t-miss innovations from the bleeding edge of science and tech Email address Sign Up Thank you!
Last week, the New York Times published a rapturous profile of a drug marketing company called Medvi, which the paper declared to be the first one-ish man venture on track to surpass one billion dollars in revenue while leaning almost exclusively on AI to build and scale the business. The news was immediately met with a wave of online backlash over both the framing of the NYT piece and the ethics of the company at the center of it — and the company’s official response raises more questions than it answers.
Medvi is a company that Futurism has been aware of for some time now. It effectively operates as a marketing wrapper for telehealth companies that prescribe and fulfill orders for GLP-1 agonists and other compounded drugs — and as we first reported all the way back in May 2025, Medvi has engaged in a range of dishonest marketing practices. It’s plastered its website with AI-deepfaked images of phony patients passed off as the real deal, flaunted media logos insinuating that it garnered editorial coverage from mainstream media outlets when it hadn’t, and featured the name and likeness of at least one medical practitioner who told us that in reality he had nothing to do with the company.
The NYT‘s profile either downplayed or omitted all of these glaring ethical red flags. The article also definitively stated that Medvi had ceased its practice of using AI-fabricated before-and-after client photos — a declaration that, as we pointed out in a follow-up, wasn’t true.
We weren’t the only ones with qualms. As folks from across the health, tech, and business worlds were quick to point out online, at the time the NYT article was published, Medvi was being marketed on social media by a trove of Meta accounts featuring clearly fake doctors. In fact, in February 2026, Medvi LLC was issued a warning from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pointing to multiple violations on a Medvi-branded site, Medvi.io. In that February warning, the FDA said that the site, Medvi.io, was misleading consumers by featuring images of Medvi-branded pill bottles and vials of injectables — Medvi isn’t actually the compounder of any drugs it sells, leaning instead on various pharmacies — and suggesting that certain drug compounds Medvi peddles are FDA-approved when they aren’t. Both the fake doctors on social media and the FDA warning went unmentioned in the NYT piece.
Yesterday, in response to public backlash and new reporting from outlets including Futurism, Techdirt, Business Insider, and the pharma-focused outlet Drug Discovery & Development, Medvi and its founder, 41-year-old Matthew Gallagher, issued a statement that it characterized as a “response to external speculation” about the company and its marketing practices.
The statement Medvi provided focuses heavily on the context surrounding the FDA warning, noting that “in September 2025 and February 2026, the FDA sent an unprecedented number of warning letters to dozens of telehealth companies, drug companies and pharmacies regarding their direct-to-consumer advertising practices.” This is true: as we noted in our previous story, Medvi was one of numerous companies issued stark warnings amid a broader crackdown on the unruly GLP-1 marketplace.
But while the FDA letter is addressed to Medvi LLC, Medvi is insisting that it was an affiliate — basically, another marketer that funnels patients to Medvi in exchange for a financial kickback — that was technically in violation of the FDA’s warning.
“In one of the FDA’s letters, the URL mentioned is medvi.io — not MEDVi’s actual address of medvi.org,” reads the statement, which is attributed to Gallagher. “The letter addressed to MEDVi was directed at an affiliate marketing agency whose website contained outdated copy. We immediately reached out to the affiliate and required them to remove the materials allegedly at issue. We understand the affiliate also directly responded to the FDA.”
“My company MEDVi has never received a letter from the FDA,” the statement continues. “If we were to receive such a communication from any regulatory authority, we would act swiftly and collaboratively to address the matter.”
... continue reading