Editorial standards

Who writes this

GLP1 Support is published by GLP1 Support Media. The people who write it are researchers and editors, not clinicians, and nothing here is medical advice.

What we can do is read the labels, the trial publications and the regulatory filings carefully, write down what they actually say, and be explicit about where the evidence runs out.

Sourcing

Factual claims trace to FDA prescribing information, peer-reviewed publications, or regulatory filings, and those sources are named on the page. Where a claim rests on animal studies rather than human trials, the page says so in those words.

Medical review

Our articles are written and edited in-house. Where an article has been reviewed by a licensed clinician, that reviewer is named on the page with their credentials and the date they reviewed it.

Where no reviewer is named, the article has not been medically reviewed. We would rather say that plainly than imply a level of oversight that is not there.

Review dates

Every compound, provider and article page carries a last-reviewed date. In a category where pricing, shortage status and compounding rules have all moved repeatedly, an undated page is worse than no page.

Confidence

Compound pages end with a section on how confident anyone can be. It is a deliberate part of the structure. Semaglutide and a research peptide with no human trials get the same page layout, and that section is where the difference is stated plainly.

What we do not do

• We do not give medical advice or recommend a dose for any individual.
• We do not accept payment for placement or ranking.
• We do not write about a compound as though it works when the evidence does not support that.
• We do not publish prices we have not dated.

Corrections

If something here is wrong, tell us and we will fix it and date the correction. Errors of fact matter more to us than the inconvenience of admitting them. Contact us.