Everything on this site reduces to four commitments: figures are dated, sources are linked, formulas are published, and conflicts are disclosed next to the claims they touch. Here are the operating rules in full.
Price verification standard
A dollar figure earns a "verified" chip only when a team member has loaded the provider's own plan or checkout page, recorded the price, the date, and the source URL, and confirmed what the price includes (membership, consults, supplies, shipping) and its dose behavior. Verified figures carry their date on-page; anything else is labeled a range, an estimate, or pending — never presented as verified. Verified rows are re-checked at least every 60 days and immediately upon any credible report of change; stale rows past 90 days are flagged on-page.
The 18-field record
Per provider: name; semaglutide offered; tirzepatide offered; brand medications available; starting advertised price; maintenance-dose price; membership fee; shipping; consultation fee; dose-based increases; pharmacy partner; pharmacy type (503A/503B/retail); states served; commitment required; cancellation terms; 12-month all-in total; last-verified date; source URL. Machine-readable copy: /data/providers.jsonProtein TargetAll Tools.
Computed metrics
True monthly cost = medication price + membership + (consult fees ÷ months in period) + shipping, at the stated tier. Twelve-month all-in = sum of all payments across a year at standard titration, including startup fees. Maintenance-dose cost = recurring true monthly cost at the provider's typical maintenance tier. Rankings sort on these computed fields only; copywriting never overrides the sort.
Ranking rules under conflict of interest
Sam LLC's material relationship with NexLife (see disclosure) creates an obvious incentive problem, which we manage structurally rather than rhetorically: the disclosure appears on every page where NexLife is ranked or recommended, adjacent to the verdict; verdicts state their verification completeness ("lowest verified," not "lowest") until the field is fully verified; category criteria are defined before rows are filled and don't move to flatter any provider; a category with no verified winner stays open rather than being awarded; and every NexLife profile or comparison must include a substantive caveats section and a genuine case for alternatives, or it doesn't publish. Readers should still apply extra skepticism to any claim that benefits our partner — the dated sources exist so you can.
Editorial evidence standard
Journal claims about efficacy or safety must trace to primary trials, FDA labeling, or regulator communications, cited at the foot of each article; secondary coverage may inform framing but can't be the sole basis for a clinical claim. Where evidence is absent (e.g., sublingual tirzepatide absorption), we say "absent," including when that's commercially inconvenient. See the editorial and medical-review policy.
What we will not do
No pay-for-placement, in either direction: providers cannot buy inclusion, ranking, or removal. No invented figures to complete a comparison. No "verified" label without a dated check. No deleting mistakes — errors are corrected in place and logged in the corrections log. And no publishing near-duplicate pages that restate the same query with shuffled words; depth over doorway pages is a standing editorial rule.