COMPARISON METHODOLOGY
How We Review
A repeatable method for evidence reviews, telehealth explainers, and future commercial comparisons.
Every review begins with reader intent and ends with a limitations check. We do not turn a vendor’s document into a clinical recommendation or place a telehealth offer beside research-use-only product coverage.
The same six-stage workflow applies whether a page explains one peptide, compares approved medicines, or evaluates the accountability signals of a program.
THE WORKFLOW
Six gates before publication
- 1
Define intent
What decision is the reader trying to understand?
- 2
Separate contexts
Clinical care and RUO vendor quality are routed independently.
- 3
Collect sources
Official records first, then the best matching research.
- 4
Extract claims
Population, model, endpoint, comparator, duration, method, and limitations.
- 5
Challenge the draft
Look for overreach, missing safety boundaries, and unsupported recommendation language.
- 6
Link and update
Add useful internal routes, source links, disclosure, and a current revision record.
TWO SCORECARDS
Different questions for different markets
Telehealth program
- Clinician licensing and state availability
- Identity of dispensing pharmacy
- Prescription and follow-up process
- Privacy, cancellation, and support terms
- Clear product/ingredient/compounding language
Research vendor
- Batch traceability and documentation
- Identity, purity, and method transparency
- Sampling and third-party laboratory independence
- Storage, shipping, and complaint records
- RUO labeling without personal-use coaching
WHAT WE DO NOT SCORE
No invented lab verification or anonymous “best” list
We do not claim to have tested products unless a real, documented program exists. We do not infer medical quality from a COA, rank vendors from marketing copy, or use testimonials as substitutes for evidence.