Editorial Policy

What we are

Peptide Review Desk is an independent research and review site covering peptide products, GLP-1 medications, and the telehealth providers that supply them.

We report on four things: what products contain, what the published research supports, what providers actually charge, and how the regulatory landscape is changing.

What we are not

We say this plainly because a number of sites in this space imply clinical oversight they don’t have, and you deserve to know which kind of site you’re reading. This shapes what we will and won’t publish.

We don’t do

• Dosing for unapproved substances or compounded products, and titration schedules, dose calculators, or administration instructions of any kind
• Recommendations about whether a specific medication is right for a specific person
• Diagnosis, or interpretation of your symptoms or lab results
• Coverage of grey-market “research use only” peptide vendors

On doses specifically. We report a dose only where it is already part of the public record — the FDA-approved labeling for an approved medicine, or the protocol of a published trial — and only as reporting, attributed to that source. We do this because you cannot compare what two providers charge without knowing which dose the price buys. We do not publish doses for unapproved substances, because no approved labeling or human trial exists to cite and the figures in circulation trace back to forums and vendor marketing. We do not publish doses for compounded products, because concentrations vary between pharmacies, so a figure that is correct for an approved pen can be wrong for a compounded vial. Nothing here tells you what to take.

We do

• Report what approved prescribing information and published studies say, with links
• Compare what providers charge, on a consistent all-in basis
• Verify third-party credentials like LegitScript certification
• Track FDA warning letters, enforcement actions, and vendor status changes
• State clearly when the evidence for something is weak or absent

If a question requires clinical judgment, our answer is that it requires clinical judgment. We’d rather be useful within our limits than authoritative outside them.

How we source

• Every clinical claim links to a primary source. Peer-reviewed research, FDA documentation, approved prescribing information, or clinical trial registries. Not another blog, not a press release, not a vendor’s product page.
• We prefer primary literature to summaries. Where we cite a trial result, we cite the trial.
• We date everything. Every article carries a publication date and a last-updated date. Pricing tables carry a separate verification date.
• We say when we don’t know. Absence of evidence gets reported as absence of evidence, not filled in with plausible-sounding inference.
• We correct in public. Errors get fixed and noted at the bottom of the article with the date and what changed. We don’t silently edit.

How we review providers

Every telehealth provider is graded on the same four criteria, applied identically whether or not we have a commercial relationship with them.

1. LegitScript certification — active third-party healthcare merchant certification, verified directly rather than taken from the provider’s marketing.
2. Pharmacy transparency — whether the provider publicly names which pharmacy fills prescriptions. Most don’t.
3. Medication sourcing — FDA-approved branded medication versus compounded formulations, and what that means for regulatory exposure.
4. True all-in cost — the twelve-month total at a maintenance dose, including membership fees, labs, and shipping. Not the advertised headline.

We contact providers for comment on factual claims before publishing critical coverage. Where a provider declines to answer, we report that they declined.

How we review products

We assess ingredient panels against published research on those ingredients at the doses and delivery routes studied. Where a product’s delivery method is implausible on physical or pharmacological grounds, we say so and explain why.

We don’t accept free products in exchange for coverage. We don’t sell reviews, review placement, or ranking position.

How we make money

Affiliate commissions. When you sign up with certain providers through our links, we receive a commission at no additional cost to you.

What that does not buy

• A better grade or a higher ranking
• Removal or softening of criticism
• Advance review of an article before publication
• Exclusion of a competitor

We review and recommend providers we earn nothing from, and we publish criticism of providers we do earn from. Our grading criteria are published above specifically so you can check our work against them.

Every page containing affiliate links carries a disclosure above the fold, before any recommendation.

About this site →   Affiliate disclosure →   Contact us →

Corrections and complaints

Found an error, or think we’ve been unfair? Email corrections@peptidereviewdesk.com. Substantiated factual errors are corrected promptly and noted publicly.

Providers who believe our coverage is inaccurate can reach us at the same address. We’ll review the evidence and correct anything we got wrong.