Editorial changelog
What we've updated
Two different records, kept apart on purpose. Below: the times we published something that was wrong (not just outdated, wrong) and what we did about it. Further down: the routine log of price checks, new listings and rescores, recorded on the day each change to our provider data went live.
Corrections (13)
A price that turned out to be a different number, a rescore that moved a rank. That's the routine log below. This section is different: something we told readers as fact that was not true, for a specific stretch of time, on a specific page. Every entry states what we published, what was actually true, and how we caught it.
Peter MD's $369 NAD+ kit and Ivy Rx's $175 were shown as monthly prices
live 2026-09-09 → corrected 2026-10-14- What we published
- Our Peter MD review, the homepage, /best, /nad-injections, /price-transparency and 27 comparison pages printed Peter MD's price as "$369/mo", and sorted it beside monthly prices. Our NAD+ cost article said the kit works out to "roughly $45 per week, or about $185–$200 per month equivalent". Ivy Rx's price was printed as "$175/mo" across the site, including the price ticker.
- What was actually true
- Peter MD's NAD+ page sells $369 as an "8-10 Week Supply (2 vials)" (read 14 October 2026): about $37 to $46 a week, or roughly $160 to $200 a month. Ivy Rx prints "Sermorelin $175" on its homepage and "From $179 (use varies)" on its product page, with no billing period beside either figure, so "/mo" was our addition.
- Why it happened
- Every price was rendered with a monthly suffix unless the record said otherwise, and the records for these two clinics described the billing unit only in free text, which the renderer cannot read.
- How we found out
- An audit on 14 October 2026 of every price shown in our titles and descriptions without its plan length.
- What we changed
- Peter MD now shows "$369 for an 8 to 10 week supply (2 vials)" and Ivy Rx "$175 with no billing period stated". Neither is placed in price orderings, cheapest-price statements, the price ticker or cheaper/costlier comparisons against monthly prices; both are listed after the monthly prices on the treatment pages. The article's arithmetic is corrected. No score or rank changed: scores never used this figure.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Neither clinic has an active affiliate link on this site.
We published "All 50 states + DC" for clinics whose coverage we had never checked
live 2026-06-04 → corrected 2026-09-19- What we published
- Every review page, and on myglp1guides the /cheapest table as well, printed "All 50 states + DC" as a clinic's availability whenever our list of states a clinic does not serve was empty. Empty meant two different things and the code treated them as one: "we checked and they restrict nothing" and "we never checked". It rendered on 24 of 25 providers here, as an affirmative nationwide coverage claim about named businesses, most of whose state coverage we had never read at source.
- What was actually true
- We do not know the state coverage of those clinics. Absence of data is not nationwide availability, and for a service shipping prescription medication by mail, availability is a licensing fact rather than a detail. Where coverage IS recorded, the figure was and remains correct.
- Why it happened
- The page code treated an empty state-restriction list as "restricts nothing", when it usually meant "never checked". The fix made on trt-picks in August was never ported here.
- How we found out
- A cross-site audit on 2026-09-19. The identical defect had already been found and corrected on trt-picks in August, as part of the Fountain TRT correction. There it affected 15 of 20 providers and surfaced only because the clinic wrote to us. The renderer fix was never ported to the other sites, so the same line kept publishing here. Verified live on both public domains before the fix, and on the rebuilt output after.
- What we changed
- Every page now uses one shared rule for the availability line, the same one our sister site TRT Picks already used. Empty now renders "Not published — check before you sign up". After rebuild, zero pages claim nationwide coverage and 24 say the coverage is not published. Named rather than left implied: this does not make the coverage known. It stops us asserting what we never checked. From the same day, every state list we record carries its source and the date we read it, and we track every clinic whose list still lacks them.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Not about one clinic: it affected 24 of 25 clinics, partners and non-partners alike.
Pallas Health: a monthly price we could not trace, and a promotional entry scored as the ongoing rate
live 2026-09-09 → corrected 2026-09-27- What we published
- We showed Pallas Health at $189/mo (NAD+ "from $189/mo average") and described its sermorelin as billed every 12 weeks at $597, with no entry/ongoing distinction. Its Price & Value score was 7.5, overall 7.7, ranked #5.
- What was actually true
- Read in a real browser on 2026-09-27, pallashealth.co/peptides says "$139 first month, then $199 every 4 weeks" for sermorelin and "first month $139" for NAD+. The recurring price is $199 per 4-week cycle (13 charges a year), and $139 is a promotional first month. We could not trace $189 to anything the page publishes.
- Why it happened
- We could not trace the $189 to anything on the page, and we recorded a promotional first month without separating it from the recurring rate.
- How we found out
- Our weekly price check flagged $189 as no longer on the page. Before changing anything, we re-read the page in a normal web browser.
- What we changed
- Price recorded as $199 every 4 weeks with a $139 promotional entry. Price & Value re-judged 7.5 -> 7.0 (higher recurring price than recorded; entry price is promotional). Overall 7.7 -> 7.5; rank #5 -> #6. Pallas is an affiliate partner and it moved DOWN, below MyDrHank (also a partner). Three articles that described 12-week billing were rewritten.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner down.
MYRNK: a first-order discount on our own link was the price we scored
live 2026-09-15 → corrected 2026-09-27- What we published
- We scored MYRNK on $99, shown as "$99 first order". Price & Value 7.0, overall 6.3.
- What was actually true
- $99 appears only on the page our affiliate link lands on (myrnk.com/nad/injectable/s/v14), as "Save $170 on your first order - 63% off TODAY only". MYRNK's public product page publishes "From $129/month" (six-month plan), $149/mo on three months and $169/mo month-to-month (read 2026-09-27). A price that exists only on the path we send traffic to is not a public price.
- Why it happened
- We scored the price shown only on the page our own affiliate link lands on.
- How we found out
- Our weekly price check compares the price on the page our link leads to with the clinic's public price. It flagged the difference, and a second review confirmed the flag was correct.
- What we changed
- Scored price is now the public $129/mo; the $99 is kept only as the campaign figure. Price & Value re-judged 7.0 -> 6.5; overall 6.3 -> 6.2; rank #20 unchanged. MYRNK is an affiliate partner; it did not move up.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. The price we wrongly used existed only on our own affiliate path. It did not move up.
Rankings were ordered on a rounded score, so file order decided some ranks
live 2026-06-04 → corrected 2026-09-27- What we published
- Our rankings sorted clinics on their overall score AFTER rounding it to one decimal. Two clinics a few hundredths apart (for example 7.650 and 7.700) both became 7.7, and the order in which they happened to be listed in our data file decided which one ranked higher. The rounded scores we displayed were correct; the ranks between near-equal clinics were not.
- What was actually true
- Ranks should follow the unrounded score. Where that is exactly equal, we now break the tie by the higher clinical score, and where that is equal too, we show the clinics as tied. File order no longer decides any rank.
- Why it happened
- We sorted clinics on their score after rounding it to one decimal, so when two scores rounded to the same figure, the order of our data file decided the rank.
- How we found out
- While re-scoring a partner on mylongevitypicks on 2026-09-27, a clinic with a lower unrounded score was ranked above one with a higher score; checking both sites found the same pattern throughout.
- What we changed
- The cause was ranking on a rounded score. Not any change to the clinics, their evidence or their scores; every displayed score is unchanged. Partner moves: Embody #7 -> #8 (down), Live Vital #13 -> #14 (down), He & She MD #15 -> #16 (down), Luvo Health #10 -> #9 (up, into a tie). Of the four partners that moved, three moved DOWN (Embody, Live Vital, He & She MD) and one moved UP (Luvo Health, which now shares #9 with System Labs). Across both sites five partners moved down and three up. Luvo Health and System Labs are exactly equal on both the unrounded score (7.200) and the clinical score (7.0), so they now share #9. All rank changes: Get Heally #8 -> #7; Embody #7 -> #8; Luvo Health #10 -> #9; Peter MD #14 -> #13; Live Vital #13 -> #14; Fidelity Medical Clinic #16 -> #15; He & She MD #15 -> #16.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Embody, Live Vital and He & She MD, all partners, moved down. Luvo Health, a partner, moved up into a tie. Get Heally, Peter MD and Fidelity Medical Clinic were not partners.
Peter MD's transparency score did not reflect its compounded-drug sameness claim
live 2026-09-30 → corrected 2026-10-03- What we published
- Peter MD's transparency score was 6.5 and its total 6.8/10, #14 of 26.
- What was actually true
- Peter MD's tirzepatide page (getpetermd.com/tirzepatide), read 2026-10-03: "We offer a compounded version the combines an active B vitamin.", "Tirzepatide (AKA: Zepbound)" and "Clinical trials showed that recipients using weekly doses experienced a mean weight loss of up to 20% at 72 weeks." The page never says the compounded product is not FDA-approved. The claim is on Peter MD's weight-loss page, not on the longevity products we review; the rule applies to the clinic. Our sameness-claim rule, adopted 2026-10-03 and applied to every clinic on all four of our sites, partner or not: when a compounded product is described as the same as an FDA-approved drug, or shown with the brand drug's trial results, and the same page does not say the compounded product is not FDA-approved, transparency is capped at 5.0. FDA's March 2026 warning letters to 30 telehealth companies cited "claims implying sameness with FDA-approved products".
- Why it happened
- The claim was on the clinic's own page, but until 2026-10-03 our transparency rubric did not weigh sameness claims at all, so the score never reflected it. The rule was added that day, applied to every clinic on all four of our sites, partner or not.
- How we found out
- A live audit of every clinic on all four of our sites on 2026-10-03, with each page loaded in a web browser, run after we found this kind of claim on Synergy Rx's product page while writing our Ozempic guides.
- What we changed
- transparency 6.5 -> 5.0; total 6.8 -> 6.4; #14 -> #19 of 26. Peter MD is NOT an affiliate partner on this site (it is one on our sister site TRT Picks, where its transparency was already 5.0, so nothing moved there). The review page now shows the cap and the quote.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Not a partner on this site. It is one on our sister site TRT Picks, where its transparency was already 5.0.
Pallas Health is no longer an affiliate partner: its programme paused on 2026-10-05
live 2026-09-27 → corrected 2026-10-05- What we published
- Our correction of 2026-09-27 ("Pallas Health: a monthly price we could not trace...") gives Pallas Health's partner status as "Partner, with an active affiliate link", and its review, compare pages and our sticky bar carried an affiliate link to Pallas.
- What was actually true
- That was true when we wrote it. On 2026-10-05 Pallas Health paused its affiliate programme, so from that date it is not a partner and we earn nothing from it.
- Why it happened
- Pallas Health changed its partner status. Nothing we published about Pallas itself was wrong; the earlier entry is left exactly as written, because it was accurate on the day it went up.
- How we found out
- Pallas Health paused the programme, and the affiliate network that runs it lists the programme as paused.
- What we changed
- Every Pallas Health affiliate link is removed and the clinic is marked as a paused programme, so the link cannot come back on its own. Its score, its rank, its review page and its sitemap entries are unchanged: a pause stops our referral link, not our assessment.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Former partner. Affiliate programme paused on 2026-10-05; no affiliate link. This entry moves nothing in the ranking.
System Labs' sermorelin price stated one way when its page shows two, and a Luvo Health discount tier that is no longer published
live 2026-09-15 → corrected 2026-10-06- What we published
- /blog/sermorelin-online-cost-entry-vs-ongoing and /blog/sermorelin-side-effects gave System Labs' sermorelin price as $89 for the first month, then $175 a month, with nine-month totals of $1,489 and $1,575. /blog/nad-clinic-billing-models said Luvo Health's 52-week commitment brings its rate down to $118 a week, and /blog/nad-nasal-spray-vs-injection described Luvo pricing every longevity route on a single published commitment ladder.
- What was actually true
- On 6 October 2026 System Labs' sermorelin page showed its header price as $175 with "$89 /first mo." on seven of eight fresh loads and as $219 with "$109 /first mo." on the eighth, while the FAQ on the same page says "First month is $109. After that, $219 per month." The page disagrees with itself, so a single figure was not the whole truth. Luvo Health's pricing page now shows the Longevity program only as "$145–$199 to start" with "Plans from 4 to 24 weeks"; it publishes no 52-week tier and no per-tier prices.
- Why it happened
- We recorded System Labs' header on one read (30 September) without noticing it changes between visits, and wrote the Luvo tiers from an earlier read that the current pricing page no longer supports.
- How we found out
- Re-reading both clinics' live pages on 6 October 2026 while resolving contradictions in what we had published: our System Labs entry held both figures, and Luvo's longest-tier line was already flagged as unverifiable.
- What we changed
- Both System Labs rows and the paragraph now give the header figures and the FAQ figures side by side, with the nine-month totals for each. The Luvo passages now say plans run from 4 to 24 weeks and that the longer plans' prices are no longer published. Two scheduled articles were corrected before publication. No score or rank changed; whether Luvo's pricing score should move now that its ladder is unpublished is still under review.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- System Labs and Luvo Health are partners with active affiliate links. Neither change moves a score or rank; both make the published price picture less favourable or less certain than what we had printed.
System Labs: a price its page no longer shows, scored as the ongoing rate
live 2026-09-30 → corrected 2026-10-16- What we published
- We showed System Labs at $149 a month after an $89 first month (NAD+), and scored Price & Value 6.0. Overall 7.2, ranked #11.
- What was actually true
- Read again on 16 October 2026, the price block on its NAD+ page shows "$129 / mo" with no first-month price, and its sermorelin and glutathione pages show $129 and $99 a month. The page still contradicts itself: its sermorelin FAQ says "First month is $109. After that, $219 per month.", and a read earlier the same morning showed NAD+ at $149 a month under "Quarterly Supply".
- Why it happened
- The clinic's page shows different figures on different visits and in different parts of the page; we had recorded an earlier version.
- How we found out
- Building the per-treatment price lists for our NAD+, sermorelin and glutathione pages, then re-reading every System Labs treatment page.
- What we changed
- Price recorded as $129 a month, the figure the price block shows a visitor, with the contradicting figures kept as dated contradictions on its review. Price & Value re-judged 6.0 -> 6.5 (not higher, because the page disagrees with itself). Overall 7.2 -> 7.3; rank #11 -> #8. System Labs is an affiliate partner and it moved UP.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner up.
RxSpan MD: we said its later months were unpublished, but its page publishes them
live 2026-10-13 → corrected 2026-10-16- What we published
- We showed RxSpan MD at $149 for the first month only and said its later months were not published; Price & Value 5.5. Overall 6.0, ranked #26.
- What was actually true
- Its longevity page labels each treatment price "(For the first month)", but the same page's plan chooser, for NAD+ injection, shows $249 a month month to month and $199, $166 and $150 a month on 3-, 6- and 12-month plans, all paid up front.
- Why it happened
- We read the per-treatment labels and missed the plan chooser further down the same page.
- How we found out
- Reading RxSpan's page again on 16 October 2026 to fill in per-treatment prices for our treatment pages.
- What we changed
- Price recorded as $150 a month on a prepaid 12-month plan ($249 month to month), with every plan length on its review. Price & Value re-judged 5.5 -> 6.0. Overall 6.0 -> 6.1; rank #26 -> #25. RxSpan MD is an affiliate partner and it moved UP.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner up.
Luvo Health: Price & Value still credited a price ladder its page no longer publishes
live 2026-10-06 → corrected 2026-10-16- What we published
- Luvo Health's Price & Value score was 6.5, which included credit for publishing its full Longevity price ladder (4, 12, 24 and 52 weeks) before intake. Overall 7.2, ranked #11.
- What was actually true
- Since 6 October 2026 its pricing page shows the Longevity program only as "$145–$199 to start" with "Plans from 4 to 24 weeks"; the per-tier prices are no longer published and the exact price is confirmed after intake.
- Why it happened
- When we corrected the article text on 6 October we left the score unchanged while we decided whether it should move.
- How we found out
- Re-reading Luvo's pricing page on 6 October 2026; the score decision was taken on 16 October 2026.
- What we changed
- Price & Value re-judged 6.5 -> 6.0; the scored price stays $199 per 4 weeks. Overall 7.2 -> 7.1; rank #11 -> #13 (bmiMD #12 -> #11, Enhanced #13 -> #12). Luvo Health is an affiliate partner and it moved DOWN.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner down.
Clinics with an open FDA warning letter now get the same partner links and placements as any other partner
live 2026-10-12 → corrected 2026-10-24- What we published
- Our affiliate disclosure said a partner needed "no FDA warning letter on file" to be eligible for our partner offers, and the full ranking on /rankings said "A partner with an open FDA warning letter is never marked PICK; its row links to our review instead." Maximus and Sprout Health, both approved partners with an open FDA warning letter, had no PICK label, no price beside their buttons, and no place in the partner block, the sticky bar, the partner offers or the recommendation boxes. Sprout Health had no button on /rankings; Maximus had one there only. Our editorial policy also said we held no FDA warning letters against any provider we rank, which was not true for these two clinics.
- What was actually true
- Both letters were and remain open, and both were shown on the clinics' reviews and capped their transparency scores. Keeping a clinic out of placements was a separate rule on top of that, and it no longer applies.
- Why it happened
- A rule change. From 24 October 2026 an open FDA warning letter limits a clinic's score and is shown on its review, but it does not decide whether an approved partner gets links or where it appears. The editorial policy sentence was written before either letter was on file and was not updated when they were.
- How we found out
- The rule was reviewed on 24 October 2026; the editorial policy sentence was found in the same review.
- What we changed
- Maximus and Sprout Health now carry the PICK label and the same buttons and partner placements as any other partner, under the same remaining checks (an active programme, a verified price, a public price that matches our link, a confirmed payout). The FDA notice stays on each review and the transparency cap stays in each score, so no score or rank changed. The disclosure, the /rankings note and the editorial policy now say this, and the editorial policy names the clinics with an open letter from our data.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Both are affiliate partners with active links. This entry moves nothing in the ranking.
VikingMan: our scores still described a two-kilobyte site after it published a full NAD+ page
live 2026-09-09 → corrected 2026-10-24- What we published
- We scored VikingMan as a 2 KB brand site that names NAD+ once with no product page, no form of administration and no description of a consultation: Clinical Oversight 5.0, Treatment Options 4.5, Transparency & Trust 3.5 (partly because "FDA Approved Products" sat next to NAD+), Price & Value 4.0. Overall 4.3, ranked #30. Our search description said it "Names 'FDA Approved Products' next to NAD+".
- What was actually true
- Read live on 24 October 2026, vikingman.com/category/nad is a full NAD+ page: subcutaneous NAD+ injections, an online questionnaire followed by a scheduled telemedicine consultation with a licensed provider, contraindications, and free discreet delivery if prescribed. Its FAQ, terms and refund pages name the company (Viking Man Inc.), the $5 online visit, Auto-Fill billing and cancellation, "all sales are final", and a supported-states list. It still publishes no NAD+ price, dose or plan length, names no pharmacy, and says nothing about compounded NAD+ not being FDA-approved; the campaign link try.vikingman.com still returns 404. The NAD+ page itself does not sit next to "FDA Approved Products".
- Why it happened
- On 24 October 2026 we updated VikingMan's review text after its new NAD+ page appeared, but left the scores and scoring notes from the 9 September read.
- How we found out
- Reviewing the same-day text update on 24 October 2026 against the scoring notes.
- What we changed
- Clinical Oversight 5.0 -> 6.0, Treatment Options 4.5 -> 5.0, Transparency & Trust 3.5 -> 4.0; Price & Value stays 4.0 (still no NAD+ price published). Overall 4.3 -> 4.8; rank stays #30 and no other clinic moved. The search description now says no NAD+ price, dose or plan length is published and the campaign link returns 404. VikingMan has no active affiliate link on this site.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- No active affiliate link on this site. This correction moved a non-partner's score up.
Routine updates
Price re-checks, new listings, rescores. Nothing here was published as a false claim; it's the ordinary record of data changing as we verify more. Each line is added the day the change goes live, in our own words at the time.
Lttl review drafted and scored, held unpublished (listingStatus pending-review) for owner approval
weekly live re-check
System Labs price re-read: NAD+ $129 -> $149/mo after an $89 first month; sibling lines corrected [deploy]
VikingMan re-scored from its full NAD+ page: 4.3 to 4.8
Treatment pages use each clinic's own treatment link; review domains and brand notes [deploy]
Nu Image Medical is no longer a partner here: link removed, out of every commercial placement; compare pages say Read Review for clinics without a link
Indexing tier 3 opens only once every live tier 1 and 2 page is indexed or was sent three times; Blue Willow dismissal reason corrected (COVID-19 claims for a nasal antiseptic, not an antigen test)
weekly live re-check
weekly live re-check
weekly maintenance 2026-10-19. FDA dismiss (Blue Willow), state block regen
Sticky bar: three short lines, closes for the visit; every partner button reads "Visit →"
Merge /blog/myrnk-two-prices-same-site into /review/myrnk (301)
Review price lines: drop the doubled 'on a' and 'per month' on AgelessRx and RxSpan MD
Re-read and rescore Pallas, System Labs, RxSpan MD and AgelessRx; hub prices for Pallas and Nu Image
Treatment hubs: sermorelin, NAD+ and glutathione prices read live on 16 Oct for 11 clinics that had none recorded (verbatim quotes in each row's note); /sermorelin uses the shared price reader and shows cheaper committed plans; NAD+ keeps its capitals on reviews. Pallas, System Labs and Nu Image held back (see report)
Review pages: plans and prices, first charges, ads vs fine print, before you sign up, real downsides, clinic FAQ
Luvo Health: Price & Value 6.5 -> 6.0; corrections entry
landing claims: weekly report-only check of Maximus's partner landings; no-link state proven
new partners: Enhanced NAD+ (#13, 7.1) and Maximus GH peptides (#25, 6.1, open FDA letter)
Embody deep links per treatment; MyDrHank card matches its record; short card price headings
Peter MD now priced per supply, Ivy Rx shown without a billing period, and plan lengths added from clinic pages read 14 Oct
every price in a title or description carries its plan length
Wellmedr is now Welludr: shown as "Welludr (formerly Wellmedr)", rename recorded from its own site (14 Oct)
unscored price credited by bucket
weekly live re-check
weekly live re-check
BBB lookup 2026-10-12 on every partner: bmiMD F loses PICK; full bbb records
Open FDA letter: review-only links outside a clinic's own pages; PICK never on open-letter or BBB D/F partners
full live longevity catalogue (9 treatments) with plan prices; oral NAD+ removed
new partner (Trackdesk General Program), pricing unscored, 6.9 (#13 of 28)
new provider, NAD+ at $199/mo, score 6.5 (#18 of 27) (2026-10-09)
Ivy Rx review: answers to common search questions from its own pages (Trustpilot 4.7 from 7,449 reviews claimed; BBB not accredited, 36 complaints in 3 years; pharmacy unnamed; 503B claim), and its FAQ now covers brand-specific questions
records over prose: Get Heally label, Live Vital glutathione, 25 -> 26 counts by what they count
23 clinic claims the evidence doesn't support, fixed (2026-10-07)
weekly live re-check
System Labs sermorelin (page disagrees with itself), AgelessRx metformin, Luvo tiers no longer published; 6 articles fixed
weekly live re-check
a partner pausing never removes a URL from the sitemap (general rule)
Pallas Health on PAUSE (programme paused by the partner, 2026-10-05)
asides become commas or parentheses, no period inside a button label
sermorelin cluster + 7 treatment articles, AgelessRx review, Ivy Rx corrected, partner offer, study claims
Scope note: the routine log covers the provider database and its supporting evidence, not general site edits like typo fixes or new blog posts. The rules for how a score can move at all are on the editorial policy page.