Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the rise and fall of "聚泰荷" (Juytaihe), a company led by Zheng Xiuli, which promoted a controversial health project targeting women, ultimately leading to allegations of illegal fundraising and fraud [1][2][19]. Company Overview - Zheng Xiuli, the chairman of 聚泰荷, presents herself as a successful entrepreneur who empowers women through a project called "泰式古法徒手私密" (Thai-style manual intimacy), claiming it can provide long-lasting health benefits [1][4]. - The company reportedly generated nearly 10 billion yuan in annual sales over four years, expanding its network across China and internationally [1]. - The business model primarily attracted female participants, including stay-at-home mothers and older women, who were motivated by promises of economic independence and entrepreneurship [1][3]. Business Model and Practices - 聚泰荷 operated on a multi-level marketing structure, relying heavily on recruitment and a pyramid scheme-like approach, where profits were derived from bringing in new members rather than actual product sales [3][25]. - Participants were encouraged to invest significant amounts of money, with initial fees for experiences starting at 39,800 yuan, and higher investments promised greater returns [8][16]. - The company utilized emotional appeals and success stories to attract and retain participants, creating a community atmosphere that emphasized personal empowerment and financial success [12][13]. Legal Issues and Investigations - In December 2025, police in Qingdao took action against 聚泰荷, leading to the detention of Zheng Xiuli and investigations into allegations of illegal fundraising and fraud [2][19]. - By early 2026, the company's offices were closed, and attempts to contact its registered entities yielded no response, indicating a collapse of operations [2][19]. - Reports indicated that many agents began to realize the unsustainable nature of the business model, leading to widespread disillusionment and financial loss among participants [3][19]. Impact on Participants - Many agents, including those who had invested substantial amounts, faced significant financial losses and emotional distress as the company collapsed [20][22]. - The article highlights personal stories of individuals who were drawn into the scheme, illustrating the psychological and social factors that contributed to their involvement [11][12][18]. - Despite the legal troubles, some participants continued to defend the company, reflecting the deep psychological investment and community ties formed within the organization [24][25].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the risks associated with postpartum recovery services, particularly those claiming to correct pelvic issues and abdominal muscle separation, which may lead to severe health complications for women after childbirth [1][4][11]. Group 1: Industry Overview - The postpartum recovery industry has seen significant growth, with the market size reaching hundreds of billions in 2023 and projected to grow at approximately 15% annually, potentially reaching 65.16 billion yuan by 2027 [11]. - Many postpartum recovery centers operate with low barriers to entry, allowing individuals with minimal training to offer services that may be classified as medical treatments without proper qualifications [12][13]. Group 2: Consumer Experiences - Numerous women, like Li Ping and Cai, have reported adverse effects after undergoing aggressive recovery treatments, including chronic pain and functional impairments, often exacerbated by the unregulated nature of these services [3][6][19]. - The marketing strategies employed by these centers often exaggerate the necessity of treatments, creating a sense of urgency among new mothers to undergo procedures that may not be medically necessary [2][7][16]. Group 3: Regulatory and Legal Challenges - The lack of clear regulations distinguishing between health consultations and medical treatments complicates consumer rights and the ability to seek legal recourse for damages incurred from these services [21][22]. - Legal actions taken by consumers against these centers often face significant hurdles, as proving the link between the services provided and the resulting health issues can be challenging [21][22][23].