Editorial methodology: how we source, evaluate, and correct

We cover FDA-approved peptide drugs — semaglutide, tirzepatide, liraglutide, tesamorelin, bremelanotide, leuprolide, and the rest. We cover compounded peptides where regulatory and clinical evidence supports honest discussion, as 503A status evolves. We review telehealth and compounding-pharmacy providers independently, with no payment for placement. And we track the regulatory developments that move the field: FDA actions, professional-society statements, court rulings, and state pharmacy-board policy.

We don't cover gray-market "research peptide" vendors operating outside the compounding-pharmacy framework. These sell substances not approved for human use, and treating them as peptide therapy normalizes a market the FDA is actively working to close. We don't treat anecdotes or testimonials as evidence — patient experience is part of the picture, but it doesn't substitute for trial data. And we don't present speculative long-horizon claims, where the data isn't in yet, as settled fact.

When we cite a fact, we use the strongest source available, and we say so when a claim rests on a weaker one.

Tier 1 — primary, authoritative. FDA prescribing labels, approval letters, FAERS adverse-event data, and the Drug Shortage portal. ClinicalTrials.gov records. Peer-reviewed publications in major medical journals — NEJM, JAMA, Lancet, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine, Diabetes Care, and equivalents. Public registries: the CMS NPI Registry and ABMS. Statements from major professional societies — the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society. Court records and DOJ releases for legal events; state health-department bulletins for state-level actions.

Tier 2 — reliable secondary. National newspapers of record and healthcare trade press with named reporters and editorial accountability — STAT, Reuters, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, Endpoints News, Fierce Pharma. Specialist regulatory press (RAPS, Regulatory Focus). Pharmaceutical data providers when they publish primary data (IQVIA). Used to corroborate, and preferred only when no Tier 1 source covers the point.

Tier 3 — used cautiously. General-interest and consumer-health coverage. Never the sole source for a clinical or regulatory claim; we trace it back to the primary source where one exists.

Not used as a primary source. Vendor blogs and product pages; telehealth marketing copy; the paywalled "market-research-mill" reports (Grand View, Fortune Business Insights, Precedence, Mordor and peers) that sell five-figure PDFs with undisclosed methodology; content farms; and anonymous accounts. We reference context from these, never authority. When a market-size figure exists only in those reports, we give a range rather than anchor on one number. We also screen out predatory or discredited journals: a source has to be MEDLINE-indexed, with a clear peer-review process, to count as Tier 1.

We don't reduce a provider to a single star rating. A score of "4.0 / 5" without a disclosed rubric is false precision, and it invites exactly the kind of gaming the category is already full of. Instead, every provider review works through the same set of dimensions, and the verdict explains where each one landed.

Pricing transparency. The real all-in monthly cost, including the fees and commitments providers don't make easy to find — consultation fees, lab add-ons, and the gap between the headline rate and what you actually pay.

Evidence and clinical basis. Whether what's prescribed is FDA-approved, compounded, or research-only, and how strong the underlying evidence is for the stated use.

Legitimacy and safety. Verifiable prescribers, checked individually against the public NPI Registry; licensing; sourcing; and any regulatory or legal exposure.

Process and access. How onboarding, prescribing, and follow-up actually work — and where the friction or the gating sits.

Support and ongoing care. What happens after the first order: messaging, dose adjustments, and clinical follow-through.

The relative weight of these shifts with the provider and with the question a reader is trying to answer, so we write the tradeoff out in plain language rather than hiding it inside a number. Every review names at least one real, verifiable limitation. A review that is 100% positive is a red flag, and we treat our own that way.

Our standard is simple: accurate or nothing. Every numerical claim — trial size, percent change, regulatory deadline, dose, date, price — is linked to a source and read directly from it, not from an aggregator. If we can't source a number, we don't print it. Before a piece goes live it passes three checks.

Source verification. Each cited link is opened and the claim is read directly from the source, not from a summary of it. If a source has moved or been removed, we replace it before publication, not after.

Editorial review. A second editor reads the draft against the source list. Claims that aren't supported are revised, sourced more strongly, or cut.

Independence check. Any commercial relationship touching the topic is surfaced explicitly. When a provider is named, the absence of a commercial relationship is confirmed by the editor, not assumed.

Pricing, named staff, and self-reported statistics change in days, so we treat them as time-sensitive: anything pulled from a company page is date-stamped ("accessed June 2026") and re-checked before publication. Named prescribers are verified individually against the public NPI Registry, and we record the NPI so a reader can check it too. A provider's own headline statistics — "100,000+ patients," "4.9 stars" — are labeled as the company's marketing claims and contrasted with independent signals such as Trustpilot or the BBB, never restated as our finding.

Editorial direction is set by our editor-in-chief; writers cover the compounds and providers; and a separate editor reviews each draft before publication. Clinical content is checked by a licensed medical reviewer with specialty training matched to the topic.

We attach a real, named byline — author or medical reviewer — only when that person has signed an editorial agreement and is verifiable in a public registry. We'd rather leave a byline slot empty than fill it with a name a reader can't check, which is the same standard we hold every provider we cover to. Who's on the masthead, and how medical review works, are on our team and authors & medical review pages.

After publication, when we get a fact wrong, we fix it. Material corrections — numbers, dates, names, claims about clinical or regulatory events — get a dated correction note at the foot of the piece, and we preserve the original wording when a correction changes meaning. Smaller fixes that don't change meaning are made with an updated "last reviewed" date. If you find a factual error, write to [email protected]. We respond.

If an editor or reviewer holds a financial interest in a manufacturer or provider covered in a piece, that interest is disclosed at the foot of the piece. Where the interest is material to the editorial judgment, that person recuses from the piece entirely. As of this update, PeptideWellness has no commercial relationships with any provider, manufacturer, or compounding pharmacy it covers.

PeptideWellness does not accept payment, fees, equity, or in-kind compensation from peptide manufacturers, telehealth providers, compounding pharmacies, or any other commercial entity covered in our editorial pages. We don't accept product samples or sponsored engagements from anyone we cover, and we don't run advertising on editorial pages. Provider coverage is determined by editorial judgment alone.

If commercial revenue mechanisms launch in the future, they will be clearly labeled, kept physically separate from editorial pages, and never used as an input to how we rank, score, or describe a provider. The judgment that decides which provider we call good or bad, and which compound we call evidence-backed or research-only, stays independent of any commercial arrangement. When anything changes here, our editorial policy is the first place it gets noted.

This category is young, and we'd rather say so than imply more certainty than exists. We're three years into the consumer GLP-1 wave and less than two into the dual-agonist era, and the long-tail safety data isn't in. The line between compounded and branded supply is moving through 2026 as the FDA adjusts its shortage list and enforcement priorities, which changes what's legally prepable from month to month. Where the evidence is thin or the rules are in flux, we say what we know, what we don't, and what would change our assessment — and we date the page so you can judge how current it is. When our view on a previously covered topic shifts, we explain why in a visible note at the top of the affected piece, not in a buried footnote.

This page is the standard we hold ourselves to. If we ever depart from it, that's worth reporting back to us at [email protected].