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 Below: the times we published something that was wrong (not just outdated, wrong) and what we did about it.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 record of price checks, new listings and rescores to our provider data, dated.
Corrections (25)
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.
CoreAge Rx's headline price is $79/mo on a 12-month plan paid in full, not $99
live 2026-09-01 → corrected 2026-10-14- What we published
- CoreAge Rx's review, our rankings and two articles gave its semaglutide price as "$99/mo" with no plan length, and scored its pricing at 7.5 on that figure.
- What was actually true
- CoreAge's public product page reads "Semaglutide ... Starting at $79 per month" and its homepage cards "Semaglutide Starting at $79/mo" (read 14 October 2026). The public pages state no plan length; its campaign page (try.coreagerx.com/home40) gives the same $79 with "Prices shown are starting at, based on a 12-month plan paid in full". The homepage hero still reads "from $99/mo". On 1 September 2026, $79 appeared only on the campaign page, which is why we used $99.
- Why it happened
- The $99 was the right public figure when we set it on 1 September. CoreAge later put $79 on its public product pages, and we kept the $99 from its homepage hero until we re-read the product pages.
- How we found out
- A live re-read of every clinic's pages on 14 October 2026, adding plan lengths to prices, found $79 on CoreAge's public product cards.
- What we changed
- CoreAge's headline is now $79/mo on a 12-month plan paid in full ($948 up front, our arithmetic), citing both the public product page and the campaign page for the term, with the homepage's $99 kept as a contradiction line. Its pricing score goes from 7.5 to 8.0 within the same pricing model; its overall score goes from 6.3 to 6.4 and its rank stays #42 of 51. Articles quoting $99 were updated.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an approved affiliate link. This correction moved a partner's score up (6.3 to 6.4); its rank did not change.
Gala Health's headline price is $129/mo for semaglutide on a prepaid year, not $179
live 2026-08-28 → corrected 2026-10-07- What we published
- Gala Health's review, our rankings and our articles gave its weight-loss price as "$179/mo on the yearly subscription", and scored its pricing at 6.0 on that figure.
- What was actually true
- Gala's own checkout (galahealth.co/funnel/v7/checkout, read 7 October 2026 in a real browser) prices compounded semaglutide at "$129/mo, billed $1,677 a year" and compounded tirzepatide at "$179/mo, billed $2,327 a year". The $179 we used was the tirzepatide rate; Gala's product page shows only "From $179/month" without naming the drug.
- Why it happened
- We read Gala's product page, which shows one undifferentiated "From $179/month" figure, and did not read its checkout, where the two drugs are priced separately.
- How we found out
- Checking whether Gala's longer plans are charged up front for our 12-month cost page, we read its checkout and found the semaglutide and tirzepatide grids.
- What we changed
- Under the rule we already apply to HealthRX, Blokes and Henry Meds (the headline is the lowest rate a clinic publishes on its own pages, with its unit), Gala's headline is now $129/mo on a $1,677 prepaid year, with $179/mo kept as its tirzepatide line. Re-scored on our pricing rubric within the same pricing model, Gala's pricing score goes from 6.0 to 7.0, level with other clinics at $119 to $141.50 on a prepaid year. Its overall score goes from 6.8 to 7.0 and its rank from #28 to #22 of 39. Articles quoting the old price or score were updated.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner up (#28 to #22).
Seven compare URLs left the sitemap when He & She MD's programme paused
live 2026-09-30 → corrected 2026-09-30- What we published
- Our sitemap listed 557 URLs, among them seven /compare/ pages pairing He & She MD with another clinic whose affiliate programme was already paused.
- What was actually true
- He & She MD paused its affiliate programme on 2026-09-30. A /compare/ page is marked noindex (it asks search engines not to list it) when NEITHER clinic on it is an affiliate partner, and our sitemap deliberately follows the same rule, so the page and the sitemap cannot disagree. Google asks explicitly that noindex URLs not be submitted. Every one of the seven pairs put He & She MD beside an already-paused clinic, so pausing it left both sides non-partner and all seven became noindex.
- Why it happened
- He & She MD's affiliate programme paused on 2026-09-30. Our compare pages declare themselves noindex when neither clinic on them is a partner, and the sitemap follows the same rule, so every page pairing it with an already-paused clinic left the sitemap.
- How we found out
- Counted the sitemap before and after applying the pause, as a standing habit: 557 -> 550. The seven were then diffed by URL rather than inferred.
- What we changed
- The seven URLs below left /sitemap.xml. The pages themselves are still served and still linked internally. Only the crawl request is withdrawn, and only because the pages now declare themselves noindex. /compare/breeze-meds-vs-he-and-she-md /compare/care-bare-rx-vs-he-and-she-md /compare/he-and-she-md-vs-ageless-glp1 /compare/he-and-she-md-vs-liv-body /compare/synergy-rx-vs-he-and-she-md /compare/telos-rx-vs-he-and-she-md /compare/yucca-health-vs-he-and-she-md This is recorded as a CORRECTION rather than a routine change because of a standing rule of ours: nothing leaves the sitemap without an explicit, recorded approval, and that rule covers any mechanism, including a consequence of another change. The removal was approved as an explicit exception on 2026-09-30, on the reasoning that it follows from the pages' own noindex marking rather than from a judgement about crawl budget, which is the failure mode the rule exists to prevent. The robots rule itself was deliberately NOT changed to keep the pages indexable; that is a larger decision than seven pages. If He & She MD's programme resumes, or if any of the seven partner clinics resumes, the affected pages become indexable again and re-enter the sitemap with no list to maintain.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- None of the eight clinics was a partner after 2026-09-30: He & She MD's programme paused that day, and the other seven were already paused. That is why the pages became noindex.
We priced and scored Direct Meds on a first-order discount, twice
live 2026-09-10 → corrected 2026-09-30- What we published
- Direct Meds carried a starting price of $147/mo on /review/direct-meds, in 10 lines across 8 articles, in its one-line summary, in a pros bullet reading “Lowest starting price we track ($147/mo)”, in its “best for” label as “Cheapest + Needle-Free”, and as the figure its pricing score of 8.0 was computed from. Several of those lines called it the cheapest clinic we track.
- What was actually true
- Read at source 2026-09-30: their offers page says “For Semaglutide we charge $297/month” beside “Get $150 Off Today!”, so $147 was 297 − 150. A first-order discount in a field defined as the ongoing recurring rate. But $297 is not the entry rate either. Their solutions page, directmeds.com/solutions/weight-loss, states in plain visible text: “everything — care support, shipping, and digital follow-ups is bundled into one clear monthly rate. Plans start at $249/month for sublingual Semaglutide, and $297/month for injections.” The field takes the lowest published recurring rate, so the correct figure is $249. And at this clinic the needle-free route is the cheaper one, which none of our prose had said. Oak, at $89, is the cheapest clinic we track; Direct Meds was never it.
- Why it happened
- We recorded a first-order discount ($297 minus $150 off) in a field meant for the ongoing rate. An earlier correction lowered the score but left the discounted figure in place, and our first fix then read a 404 path as proof the $249 rate was no longer published.
- How we found out
- While recording where each provider's pricing STRUCTURE comes from, the offers page had to be read line by line. The $297 and the $150-off appeared in the same block.
- What we changed
- The starting price moved from $147 to $297, with $147 now recorded separately as a promotional first-order price, and the verified price was updated to match. The 10 article lines were rewritten rather than renumbered, because the claims were false and not merely stale; the one-line summary, pros and “best for” label were corrected. The pricing criterion moves 8.0 -> 6.5, calibrated at the real $249 among clinics with all-inclusive pricing, against the $199 cluster (7.0) and MangoRx at $299 (5.5). Overall score 7.1 -> 6.7, and Direct Meds moves #19 -> #24. The part worth recording is that this is the SECOND correction of the same error on the same provider. Our scoring calibration notes already named it: “The highest pricing score on the site (Direct Meds, 9.0) went to a promotional entry tier that steps up.” That cut 9.0 to 8.0. But 8.0 was still computed from $147, which was still the promotional figure. The symptom was treated and the cause was left in place. Also recorded: four of the six places carrying the wrong figure were caught by our automated checks, and two were not. One check caught an article line that had the figure without the brand name on it, and another caught the one-line summary. The pros bullet and the “best for” label were found only by reading the live page, because that check covered the summary and not the other provider fields. The check was extended to cover them. And where the price actually lives, because it cost two reads to find: “we charge $297/month” sits in a COLLAPSED FAQ on /dm-offers-stc/, hidden until it is opened. It does not show on a normal read of the page and appears only after the FAQ controls are opened. And a correction to this correction, recorded because it was ours and it erred in the clinic's favour: we first set $297, having tested directmeds.com/weight-loss/ (which 404s) and concluded $249 was no longer published. The live path is /solutions/weight-loss. A 404 on one path is not evidence a price is unpublished. The sister site glp1pick carried $249 throughout and was right; the disagreement between the two sites was what surfaced it, for the second time after Embody on 19 September.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner down (#19 to #24).
We ranked Embody on a price only reachable through our own affiliate link
live 2026-09-01 → corrected 2026-09-19- What we published
- Embody's headline price was $69/mo on /review/embody, in the ranking tables of five articles, and as the figure its pricing score was computed from. $69 is what our affiliate tracking link (exclusive.joinem.co) resolves to. A reader arriving at embody any other way sees $79.
- What was actually true
- Read on both domains with a real browser on 2026-09-19: joinem.co, the public site, shows "$79/month" for semaglutide and "$129/month" for tirzepatide. exclusive.joinem.co, our affiliate path, shows "$69/mo" and "$119/month". $10 below the public figure on both molecules. The $69 is not a price a stranger can obtain.
- Why it happened
- We scored the price on the page our own affiliate link lands on, $10 below Embody's public site. The difference was already recorded in a field the ranking never read.
- How we found out
- A cross-site comparison on 2026-09-19 found glp1pick publishing $79 for the same clinic while this site published $69. The two sources were exclusive.joinem.co and joinem.co, which named the cause immediately.
- What we changed
- The starting price moved from $69 to $79, the verified price and its cited source moved to the public site, and the five article tables were corrected. Overall score moves to 7.2; Embody sits at #17. The part worth recording is that nothing here was undiscovered. Our record of Embody's campaign page had held exactly these numbers ($69 campaign, $79 public, marked as differing) since 2026-09-01, and Embody is the founding incident behind our standing rule that the price we score must be the price a stranger sees. The evidence was recorded, the rule was written, and the figure that actually drives the ranking was never moved. An exception recorded where nothing acts on it is the same failure as an exception written in prose. Also recorded, not resolved: $79 is not established as an ongoing rate either. The public homepage carries a "FALL SALE PROMO APPLIED. SAVE $230 EVERY MONTH" banner, and embody's own FAQ says pricing varies by the plan term chosen at checkout (4, 12, 24 or 52 weeks), which the homepage does not show.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. The price we wrongly used existed only on our own affiliate path.
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 31 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
- The separate pieces of code that printed this label on each page were replaced by a single shared one, the same as on trt-picks. An empty list 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 also records its source and the date we checked it, and an automated check reports every list still missing them.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Not about one clinic: it affected 24 of 31 clinics, partners and non-partners alike.
SnagRx's clinical score was Embody's, inherited on shared ownership. Evidence a reader on SnagRx has no route to
live 2026-08-28 → corrected 2026-09-10- What we published
- SnagRx scored 7.5 on Clinical Oversight, level with providers that disclose a named clinical entity and a monitoring process. Its own note gave the reason (translated from our internal working language): "7.5 is the level given to Embody, the same operator — it would be inconsistent to give the same company a different score for the same operation." Overall 7.1, rank #25.
- What was actually true
- Everything SnagRx publishes about clinical care is one marketing line: "Doctor-prescribed GLP-1 treatment shipped to your door in 1-2 days." No review process, no monitoring cadence, no labs, no named clinician or medical group. The shared-operator premise is true (Modern Metabolic Medicine, Inc. runs both) but the criterion scores what a reader can verify on the surface in front of them, and neither site tells the buyer the other exists (recorded in SnagRx's own transparency note). A reader on snagrx.com cannot reach Embody's LegitScript certification or its named CareGLP Affiliated P.C.s, so cannot benefit from that evidence. Corrected to 5.5, below Try Ageless at 6.5 which at least describes a review, and below MangoRx at 6.0 which describes review per request plus dose adjustment. Overall 7.1 to 6.5; rank #25 to #32.
- Why it happened
- SnagRx's clinical score was copied from Embody because one company runs both, instead of being scored from what SnagRx's own pages show a reader.
- How we found out
- Found while checking why Embody and SnagRx held identical values on all four criteria. Three of SnagRx's four scores turned out to be justified by equivalence to Embody rather than by its own evidence; all four of its notes referenced Embody, while none of Embody's referenced SnagRx. The rule this exposed (clinical scores the provider's own public surfaces, and shared ownership does not transfer clinical evidence between storefronts) is now written into our scoring calibration notes, which previously left the clinical criterion uncalibrated in writing.
- What we changed
- Clinical Oversight 7.5 to 5.5; overall 7.1 to 6.5; rank #25 to #32. The rule that shared ownership does not transfer clinical evidence between storefronts was written into our scoring calibration.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner down.
SnagRx's medication-options score was inherited from Embody on a claim of equivalence that was false when written
live 2026-08-28 → corrected 2026-09-10- What we published
- SnagRx scored 8.0 on Medication Options, and its own evidence note gave the reason (translated from our internal working language): "Identical to the Embody offer, so the same score: 8.0." That put SnagRx at overall 7.2 and rank #23, level with Embody on every one of the four criteria.
- What was actually true
- The two offerings are not identical, and our own data recorded the difference the whole time: Embody lists three treatments (compounded semaglutide, compounded tirzepatide, and a daily oral gum. Needle-free), SnagRx lists two, injection only. Embody earns 8.0 on two molecules in two formats. SnagRx offers two molecules in one. Corrected to 7.5. The band every other provider with the same two-molecule injectable menu occupies (HealthRX, yourEra, Yucca Health, Henry Meds). SnagRx had been the only two-item menu in the 8.0 band, which is otherwise entirely three-item menus. Overall 7.2 to 7.1; rank #23 to #25.
- Why it happened
- The score was copied from Embody on a written claim that the two offers were identical. Our own data showed Embody has a needle-free option SnagRx does not.
- How we found out
- Noticed while checking why Embody and SnagRx held identical values on all four criteria after Embody's transparency was corrected on 2026-09-10. The convergence was not coincidence: one score had been copied across on an assertion of sameness rather than derived from SnagRx's own evidence. A score justified by "same as X" goes stale the moment X changes. This one did not even wait, it was wrong from the day it was written.
- What we changed
- Medication Options 8.0 to 7.5, the band every clinic with the same two-molecule injectable menu holds; overall 7.2 to 7.1; rank #23 to #25.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner down.
We said Embody had no BBB profile. It has an F-rated one, and the score was 1.5 points too generous because of it.
live 2026-08-30 → corrected 2026-09-10- What we published
- Embody's transparency note stated "No BBB profile found", and its transparency score sat at 6.5. While Direct Meds and Gala Health were both capped at 5.0 on a BBB F rating. At the same time our own third-party records carried an entry for Embody saying the opposite: found true, rating F, 21 complaints, 21 unanswered. The two sources contradicted each other in our own data for 11 days, and the wrong one was the one driving the score.
- What was actually true
- The BBB profile is real: Modern Metabolic Medicine, Inc., 1811 Silverside Rd Ste 260, Wilmington DE, rating F, not accredited, F assigned by BBB for failure to respond to complaints. 21 complaints, all unanswered, 11 service and 9 billing. It sits in the same BBB office as Gala Health's profile (0251, Wilmington DE) with an adjacent business ID. Transparency corrected 6.5 to 5.0, the same band already applied to Direct Meds and Gala Health on identical evidence. Overall score 7.6 to 7.22; rank #12 to #22.
- Why it happened
- Two records in our own data disagreed: the evidence note said Embody had no BBB profile, while our third-party record had the F rating. The score followed the wrong one for 11 days.
- How we found out
- The structured record carried its own warning, "via search synthesis, not an independently fetched profile page this round, recommend a direct re-check at the next pass", and a profile link pointing at bbb.org/search rather than a profile. That caveat is why the BBB flag we added to the rankings table on 2026-09-10 deliberately excluded Embody, which in turn made the contradiction visible. The re-check the record asked for found the real profile URL and corroborated every figure. Note the honest limit: bbb.org blocks us on every page, including the Gala Health and Direct Meds profiles we already cite, so we have still not opened the page directly; the correction rests on two independent searches that surfaced the profile URL and matched the original numbers exactly.
- What we changed
- Transparency 6.5 to 5.0, the band already applied to Direct Meds and Gala Health on the same evidence; overall 7.6 to 7.22; rank #12 to #22.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner down.
We said Synergy RX publishes no GLP-1 price. It did, on a tab we never clicked.
live 2026-08-28 → corrected 2026-09-10- What we published
- Synergy RX was listed with no price at all, marked as "not published" and "consult-only", its pricing criterion left unscored with the weight redistributed to other criteria, and a transparency score of 6.5 placed explicitly in the band for clinics where "no single all-in number is ever stated". Its one-line summary told readers "pricing is disclosed only after intake, not published up front". A previously recorded $199 figure was deleted on 2026-08-28 as "never firmly confirmed".
- What was actually true
- Synergy RX publishes its full GLP-1 price grid on its own products page, before any intake: compounded semaglutide injection $199/mo, compounded tirzepatide $349/mo, semaglutide oral dissolving tablet $299/mo, tirzepatide oral tablet $399/mo, and brand-name Wegovy/Mounjaro $947 and Ozempic $499. The deleted $199 was correct all along.
- Why it happened
- Both checks read the products page's default LONGEVITY tab and never opened WEIGHT LOSS. Two reads of the same unclicked page were counted as two independent confirmations.
- How we found out
- During a full re-verification of all 41 providers on 2026-09-10. The products page splits its catalogue into five tabs (LONGEVITY, HAIR, SEXUAL HEALTH, SKIN, WEIGHT LOSS) and opens on LONGEVITY. Both 2026-08-28 checks, recorded as "confirmed twice independently (public homepage AND our own affiliate tracking link)", read that default tab: the prices they cited as proof of absence ($275 for NAD+/Sermorelin/Glutathione/PT-141, $109 for B12) are the LONGEVITY tab's contents. The two sources were independent; the page state was not. glp1picks.com lists the same $199 with the same attribution, which is a second, genuinely independent confirmation that the figure was public.
- What we changed
- The $199 price was restored and scored (Price & Value 7.0, in the existing $199 all-inclusive group), transparency 6.5 to 7.0, and the summary saying pricing is disclosed only after intake was removed. The original entry does not record the overall score or rank change.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link at the time (its programme was paused later, on 2026-09-28). This correction moved a partner up.
Our #1 clinic's price was recorded as unlocatable for nine days. It was on a subdomain.
live 2026-09-01 → corrected 2026-09-10- What we published
- Wellorithm, ranked #1, carried a starting price of $147 whose evidence pointed at wellorithm.com/campaign-7. An affiliate campaign path that renders no price at all. Our record of its public price was empty, with the reason "no public pricing page found: no nav link, no sitemap.xml, /pricing and /plans both 404, homepage renders no prices", which under our own rules marks the price INCONCLUSIVE and barred Wellorithm from every commercial slot. Its pricing score was additionally marked as waiting to be recomputed.
- What was actually true
- The $147 is public and always was. Wellorithm's product catalogue lives on the subdomain glp.wellorithm.com (redirecting to /partner/wellorithm), linked from the homepage's own navigation, behind no login and needing no affiliate parameters: Compounded Semaglutide $147.00 and Compounded Tirzepatide $247.00 month-to-month, three-month supplies at $647.00 and $947.00, oral dissolving tablets at the same rates, and brand-name Wegovy $899.00, Ozempic and Zepbound $1,199.00, Mounjaro $1,399.00. The $147 is the month-to-month compounded semaglutide rate and is cheaper per month than the three-month bundle ($647 / 3 = $215.67), so nothing steps up and no cheaper tier hides beneath it.
- Why it happened
- Every check searched wellorithm.com. The product catalogue is on the subdomain glp.wellorithm.com, linked from the homepage navigation.
- How we found out
- During the same 2026-09-10 re-verification. Every observation in the original inconclusive reason was accurate about wellorithm.com and every one of them searched the wrong host. An exhaustive search of the wrong hostname returns exactly what non-existence returns. glp1picks.com had the same $147 verified on 2026-09-03, which is what prompted looking again rather than accepting our own record.
- What we changed
- The public price was recorded from glp.wellorithm.com, which cleared the inconclusive flag that had barred Wellorithm from every commercial slot. The $147 figure itself did not change.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction lifted a restriction on a partner.
Four recorded prices had drifted or inverted: SkinnyRx, Ivim Health, Noom, RxSpan MD
live 2026-09-08 → corrected 2026-09-10- What we published
- SkinnyRx at $199/mo (recorded as tiered pricing, with no price-stability flag). Ivim Health at $100/mo sourced to ivimhealth.com/glp1-pricing/ with a locked-commitment flag. Noom at $129/mo described in its own note as "the ongoing rate from month two on the quarterly plan", with $79 called the month-one intro. RxSpan MD at $194/mo on a 12-month plan billed $2,327 up front.
- What was actually true
- SkinnyRx no longer shows $199 anywhere; the product page publishes only "$99 first month" under a "While Supplies Last" banner and never states the month-two rate. Ivim Health's pricing URL is a 404 and the $600 six-month bundle is gone; its own funnel (a JS redirect from /weightloss/ to /glp1id-hfd-a/) shows compounded semaglutide from $149/mo and tirzepatide $224/mo. Noom's figures were inverted: its pricing page reads "$129 To get started. $249/mo after the first 4-week supply (billed quarterly)", so $129 is the entry price and $249 the ongoing rate, not the reverse. RxSpan MD's 12-month rate fell to $175/mo billed $2,094 up front, with the STARTNOW promo applied in the displayed price.
- Why it happened
- Clinics changed their prices or offers and we had not re-read every commitment tier. Noom's two figures had also been recorded the wrong way round.
- How we found out
- Full live re-verification of all 41 providers in a real browser on 2026-09-10, reading every commitment tier rather than the headline. SkinnyRx is now flagged promotional-entry, which excludes it from /cheapest and from the ongoing-cost figure; its pricing value was deliberately held at 5.5 rather than raised into the $99 cohort, because the visible number fell while the disclosure got worse, and scoring that as an improvement would reward opacity.
- What we changed
- SkinnyRx flagged as a promotional entry price, which takes it out of /cheapest and the ongoing-cost figure, with its pricing score held at 5.5. Ivim Health moved to the $149 its own funnel shows; Noom recorded as $129 to start and $249 ongoing; RxSpan MD's 12-month rate updated to $175 a month, billed $2,094.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- SkinnyRx and RxSpan MD were partners with active links. Ivim Health and Noom were not.
"Prices re-verified monthly" was not true
live 2026-06-22 → corrected 2026-08-28- What we published
- The claim "prices re-verified monthly" (or close variants) appeared in 10 places sitewide. The homepage hero and FAQ, /cheapest (6 separate instances: kicker, hero copy, trust-strip badge, FAQ answer, methodology section, footer disclaimer), /compare pages (JSON-LD FAQ, trust-strip badge, closing note), /about, /editorial-policy, /terms, llms.txt, and the footer. /editorial-policy separately claimed the build process "refuses to publish" a price change without re-verification.
- What was actually true
- Re-verification runs weekly, not monthly, and nothing has ever held publication back because a price changed. That mechanism was never built. Worse, for a 45-82 day stretch (2026-07-07 through 2026-08-25) the automated weekly re-check could not reach any clinic website at all, so zero re-confirmations happened in that entire window while the "monthly" claim stayed live and unqualified.
- Why it happened
- The sentence described a schedule nobody had built, and for 45 to 82 days the re-verification could not reach any clinic's site at all.
- How we found out
- Found during an audit of the price-display code, not flagged externally. Fixed by replacing all 10 instances with language describing what the system actually does (automated weekly checks, per-provider verification status, 45-day auto-expiry from "Verified" to "Last confirmed"), and by moving the wording into one shared definition so the claim can only be written in one place going forward.
- What we changed
- All 10 instances replaced with what the system actually does: automated weekly checks, a verification status per clinic, and "Verified" expiring to "Last confirmed" after 45 days. The wording now lives in one shared constant.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Not about one clinic: a sitewide claim.
Yucca Health's "month-2 price step-up" never existed
live 2026-07-15 → corrected 2026-08-28- What we published
- The published Yucca Health review told readers the $146 rate was a first-month teaser that stepped up to roughly $206/mo starting month 2 (and $275/mo month-to-month), and built its verdict around "good value IF you budget for the step-up." The transparency score's justification cited the same step-up as a mark against the clinic.
- What was actually true
- Those figures were never confirmed against Yucca's own site. They came from third-party summary sites (yourhealthmagazine.net, glp1clinics.org), pulled in during a window when our own check tooling could not reach tryyucca.com directly. A live, real-browser check on 2026-08-28 found Yucca's own FAQ states plainly: "$125 per month with the 6-month plan ($750 total); the month-to-month plan is $146 per month." No step-up exists at any point.
- Why it happened
- The step-up came from third-party summary sites, used while our tools could not reach Yucca's own site, and it was never checked against that site.
- How we found out
- A scheduled live re-verification pass (in a real browser) that happened to check the underlying claim directly rather than trusting the earlier third-party source.
- What we changed
- The review's verdict and the transparency reasoning no longer cite a step-up. The original entry does not record a score change.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link at the time (its programme was paused on 2026-09-01).
Our first fix for missing data rewarded clinics that block us
live 2026-08-28 → corrected 2026-08-28- What we published
- When we introduced scoring pricing only within comparable pricing models, some clinics ended up with no verifiable pricing structure at all. Our first version of the rule for handling that missing criterion spread the missing weight across each clinic's remaining criteria. Redistributing it.
- What was actually true
- That approach quietly converted absent evidence into a bonus: it re-weighted each clinic's total onto whatever it happened to score best on. Under it, Ro rose to #1 overall and Hims & Hers to #3, the two clinics that block our automated price checks outright with hard 403 responses, while Yucca Health, which publishes both its price tiers and its total prepay amount, fell seven places. The clinics that let us verify the least ranked the highest. We replaced it the same day with a floor rule: an unscored criterion is credited at the lowest score that clinic earned on any criterion we could assess, which can only lower or hold a score, never raise one. A property of the arithmetic, not a promise.
- Why it happened
- Our rule for a criterion we could not score spread its weight over the clinic's other criteria, which rewarded the clinics we could verify least.
- How we found out
- Caught internally while reviewing the rescore's own results before publishing them further. The Ro/Hims-Yucca reversal was implausible on its face and prompted checking the mechanism, not just the numbers.
- What we changed
- Replaced the same day with a floor rule: an unscored criterion is credited at the lowest score the clinic earned on any criterion we could assess, which can only lower or hold a score, never raise one.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Yucca Health, the clinic the old rule pushed down, was a partner with an active link. The original entry does not record the partner status of Ro or Hims & Hers.
We held HealthRX's transparency score down for two things that were no longer true
live 2026-08-28 → corrected 2026-09-30- What we published
- HealthRX's transparency score was 7.5 and its total 7.7/10, cited in twelve lines across eight articles and on /review/healthrx. Our own calibration file gave one reason for the 7.5: the $99 headline is a 12-month-lock rate versus $133 short-term, "and that condition is not surfaced". The evidence note added a second: "states-served list not confirmed on page".
- What was actually true
- Read on the rendered page with a real browser on 2026-09-30 (healthrx.com/pricing): the commitment is the page's OPENING sentence, "Compounded semaglutide starts at $99/mo on the 12-month plan and $190 on the monthly plan", and the table publishes the whole ladder with the amount actually charged and the renewal price: "12-Month Plan | 12 months | $1,188 | $99/mo | $1,163". The same page states "Service is available in all 50 US states for adults 18 and older." Both deductions had expired. We do not know the date HealthRX changed the page; the note's own figures were last confirmed in July 2026, so the deductions were stale for some part of that window.
- Why it happened
- Two deductions were written from figures last confirmed in July and never re-checked against the page, which had since changed.
- How we found out
- A live re-read of eleven clinic pricing pages on 2026-09-30, run to recover the upfront charged amounts for a separate piece of work on prepaid-term price labels. Checking the note against the page it cited showed the rationale no longer matched the page.
- What we changed
- transparency 7.5 -> 8.0; total 7.7 -> 7.8. HealthRX moves from #5 to #4 in the public ranking, level on score with Pallas Health at #3. Our scoring calibration note was rewritten with the current reasoning and moved from the 7.5 band to the 8.0 band, and it now records why 8.5 is still out of reach: no external accountability, and no Trustpilot profile for healthrx.com at all. Twelve content lines updated from 7.7 to 7.8, and one stale rank claim ("#7 overall") corrected to #4. DISCLOSED DELIBERATELY: HealthRX is an affiliate partner with an active link, so this correction moved a PARTNER UP the ranking. It was found while re-reading pricing pages, not raised by the partner, and the commission did not change and plays no part in the score. A partner moving up goes on the record for the same reason a partner moving down does. Also synced an old, unused copy of HealthRX's scores in our data, which read pricing 8.0 while the evidence read 7.5. Nothing on the site showed that copy, but two numbers for one thing is how the next error starts.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner up.
Oak's transparency score did not reflect its compounded-drug sameness claim
live 2026-09-12 → corrected 2026-10-03- What we published
- Oak's transparency score was 7.0 and its total 7.7/10, #4 of 30.
- What was actually true
- Oak's weight-loss page (oaklovesyou.com/weightloss), read 2026-10-03, says: "Our compounded GLP-1 medications contain the same active ingredient (semaglutide) as brand-name drugs." and "Same science, fraction of the price." The page never says the compounded product is not FDA-approved. 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, rendered in Chrome, run after we found this kind of claim on Synergy Rx's product page while writing our Ozempic guides.
- What we changed
- transparency 7.0 -> 5.0; total 7.7 -> 7.2; #4 -> #16 of 30. Oak IS an affiliate partner with an active link, so this correction moves a PARTNER DOWN. The commission plays no part in the score. The review page now shows the cap and the quote.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner down.
Synergy Rx's transparency score did not reflect its compounded-drug sameness claim
live 2026-09-10 → corrected 2026-10-03- What we published
- Synergy Rx's transparency score was 7.0 and its total 7.5/10, #9 of 30.
- What was actually true
- Synergy Rx's products page (synergyrx.co/products, WEIGHT LOSS tab), read 2026-10-03: "Same active ingredient as Ozempic®* and Wegovy®*", "15-18% average weight loss in clinical trials" and, on its compounded tirzepatide tablet, "It has the same active ingredient as Mounjaro® and Zepbound®". The asterisks lead to no footnote, and the page never says the products are not FDA-approved. 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, rendered in Chrome, run after we found this kind of claim on Synergy Rx's product page while writing our Ozempic guides.
- What we changed
- transparency 7.0 -> 5.0; total 7.5 -> 7.0; #9 -> #19 of 30. Synergy Rx's affiliate program is paused (since 2026-09-28); it has no active link. The review page now shows the cap and the quote.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Not a partner. Synergy Rx was one until its affiliate programme was paused on 2026-09-28; it has no active link.
Found's transparency score did not reflect its compounded-drug sameness claim
live 2026-09-12 → corrected 2026-10-03- What we published
- Found's transparency score was 6.5 and its total 7.0/10, #20 of 30.
- What was actually true
- Found's homepage (joinfound.com), read 2026-10-03: "medication included on compounded plans.*", with the asterisk leading to "In a 68- and 72-week clinical trial studying Wegovy (2.4 mg) and Zepbound (15 mg) [...] the average weight loss was 15% and 20% respectively". The page never says the compounded product is not FDA-approved. 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, rendered in Chrome, 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 7.0 -> 6.6; #20 -> #24 of 30. Found IS an affiliate partner with an active link, so this correction moves a PARTNER DOWN. The review page now shows the cap and the quote.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner down.
We credited WellMedr with brand-name Ozempic and Zepbound that its page never says it sells
live 2026-09-12 → corrected 2026-10-03- What we published
- WellMedr's treatment score was 8.0 and its total 7.7/10, #5 of 30, on the reasoning that it "Offers BOTH compounded (semaglutide/tirzepatide) and FDA-approved brand-name (Ozempic, Zepbound)". Its review listed "brand-name Ozempic" and "brand-name Zepbound", a pro read "Both compounded and FDA-approved brand-name options on one platform", and its one-liner promised "brand-name Ozempic/Zepbound access".
- What was actually true
- Read on the rendered page on 2026-10-03 (wellmedr.com/pages/get-started-weight-loss): "Ozempic Starting at $1,399" with "Contains Semaglutide", and "Zepbound starting at $1,599" with "Contains Tirzepatide". Nowhere does the page say either is the brand-name product, and its safety notice says "welludoc offers compounded GLP-1 medications exclusively from licensed U.S. pharmacies." Without brand access WellMedr offers two compounded molecules by injection, the profile we score 7.5 at HealthRX, Yucca Health, yourEra and SnagRx.
- Why it happened
- We credited brand-name access from the drug names and prices on WellMedr's page without checking that the page said the product was the brand-name drug. It never does.
- How we found out
- The same correction made on our sister site GLP1Pick on 2026-10-03, after re-reading the clinics that list Ozempic by name.
- What we changed
- treatment 8.0 -> 7.5; total 7.7 -> 7.6; rank unchanged at #5 of 30. Treatments now read "brand or compounded not stated"; the brand pro and one-liner claim are removed, a warning tells readers to ask which product they would receive, and the brand-name quiz filter no longer counts it. WellMedr IS an affiliate partner on this site, with an active link, so this correction moves a PARTNER DOWN. The commission plays no part in the score.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner's score down; its rank did not change.
Wellorithm's $147 is the first month only; from the second month it is $247
live 2026-06-25 → corrected 2026-10-06- What we published
- Wellorithm's review, our rankings and 20 published articles gave its compounded semaglutide price as "$147/mo" or "from $147/mo", as a monthly rate.
- What was actually true
- Wellorithm's semaglutide card says "first month $147" and "Second month and on. $247" (read 6 October 2026 in a real browser). $147 is a one-month entry price; the recurring rate is $247 a month.
- Why it happened
- The first-month figure was recorded in the field defined as the recurring monthly rate, the same error we corrected earlier for Direct Meds, WellMedr and Embody. Our own pros line already called it "+$100 off first month".
- How we found out
- Re-checking scheduled articles on our sister site against a live-price quote for Wellorithm ("Second month and on. $247"), then re-reading the card on 6 October 2026.
- What we changed
- The record now carries $247 as the monthly rate and $147 as the first-month price. Every article and table that said "$147/mo" now says "$247/mo ($147 first month)" or equivalent, 27 articles in all, including 7 not yet published. Its pricing score (8.0, set on $147) was not changed by this correction; it was left for a separate re-score (see the 8 October entry), so its 8.3/10 total and #1 rank were unchanged at the time.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction makes a partner look more expensive; it currently ranks #1.
Wellorithm's pricing score was set on a first-month price; re-scored on its $247 monthly rate, its total falls from 8.3 to 7.9
live 2026-06-25 → corrected 2026-10-08- What we published
- Wellorithm's pricing score was 8.0 and its total 8.3/10, #1 in our ranking. The 8.0 had been set when we read its price as "$147/mo".
- What was actually true
- Wellorithm's semaglutide card says "first month $147" and "Second month and on. $247" (read 6 October 2026 in a real browser). The rate you pay from the second month is $247. Among clinics with the same all-inclusive pricing, the closest comparison is Direct Meds, $249 a month after a $147 first month, scored 6.5 on pricing.
- Why it happened
- The price evidence: the score was set on the $147 first-month figure, which we had recorded as a monthly rate. The record was corrected on 6 October (previous entry); the score is corrected now.
- How we found out
- Follow-up to the 6 October correction, which recorded $247 as the monthly rate and left the pricing score for a re-score on our pricing rubric.
- What we changed
- pricing 8.0 -> 6.5; total 8.3 -> 7.9. Wellorithm stays #1, now 0.1 ahead of the next clinics instead of 0.5. Every article that quoted its 8.3/10 now gives 7.9/10. The re-score compares it only with clinics that use the same all-inclusive pricing.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Wellorithm IS an affiliate partner with an active link. We may earn a commission if you sign up through our link. This correction moves a partner's score DOWN, from 8.3 to 7.9, and the cause is the price evidence above ($147 first month, then $247), not the partnership. It still ranks #1. Commission is never an input to any score.
Oak's published price is back to $119/mo, not $89; its pricing score falls from 8.5 to 8.0
live 2026-09-30 → corrected 2026-10-11- What we published
- Oak's review, our rankings and our articles gave its price as "from $89/mo", read from Oak's homepage on 30 September 2026. Its pricing score was 8.5 and its total 7.2/10, #18 of 39.
- What was actually true
- Oak's homepage, read 11 October 2026, says "Prescription weight loss from $119/mo. No insurance needed." and "GLP-1 Treatments for weight loss from $119/mo". $89 no longer appears. Among clinics with the same all-inclusive pricing, $119 sits between Telos Rx at $99 (pricing 8.0) and LIV Body at $179 (7.5).
- Why it happened
- The price moved on Oak's own page after our 30 September read. The 8.5 had been set on 28 August, when Oak was the cheapest clinic in its pricing group at $119, and was not raised when the price fell to $89.
- How we found out
- A live read of Oak's site on 11 October 2026 while answering search questions for its review.
- What we changed
- Price $89 -> $119; pricing 8.5 -> 8.0; total 7.2 -> 7.1; rank #18 -> #21 of 39. Every article that quoted $89 or 7.2/10 for Oak now gives $119 and 7.1/10, and lines that called Oak the cheapest compounded option were rewritten.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Oak IS an affiliate partner. We may earn a commission if you sign up through our link. This correction moves a partner's price UP and its score DOWN, from 7.2 to 7.1, and the cause is Oak's own published price, not the partnership. Commission is never an input to any score.
Embody no longer sells an oral GLP-1 'gum'; its treatment score falls from 8.0 to 7.5
live 2026-06-22 → corrected 2026-10-11- What we published
- Embody's review and several articles described compounded semaglutide and tirzepatide as "a weekly injection or a daily oral 'gum'", labelled Embody "Best for Needle-Free GLP-1", and scored treatment options at 8.0 for offering two formats.
- What was actually true
- Embody's full public product catalogue (joinem.co, read 11 October 2026) lists 14 products, all compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide injection plans. None is a gum or any other oral format, and the homepage no longer mentions one. Clinics with compounded semaglutide and tirzepatide by injection only score 7.5 on treatment, including SnagRx, which is run by the same company.
- Why it happened
- The oral gum was recorded when we added Embody on 22 June 2026 and was never re-checked against its product catalogue.
- How we found out
- A live read of Embody's homepage and product catalogue on 11 October 2026.
- What we changed
- Oral gum removed from Embody's treatments, pros and one-liner; the needle-free label removed; treatment 8.0 -> 7.5; total 7.2 -> 7.1; rank #17 -> #19 of 39. Articles that described the gum were corrected. The LegitScript seal is still shown in Embody's site footer, so that statement stays.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Embody IS an affiliate partner. We may earn a commission if you sign up through our link. This correction moves a partner's score DOWN, from 7.2 to 7.1, and the cause is Embody's own catalogue, not the partnership. Commission is never an input to any score.
WeightWatchers has a BBB profile, rated C-; we said it had none
live 2026-08-30 → corrected 2026-09-11- What we published
- The WeightWatchers Clinic review said BBB had no profile for the company, after searches for "WW International" and "Weight Watchers" returned no match.
- What was actually true
- BBB has a headquarters profile for WW in New York (alternate names include Weight Watchers International, Inc. and Weight Watchers Clinic powered by Sequence), rated C-, not accredited, citing 21 complaints that were not resolved (read 14 October 2026). We cannot tell from today's page whether the profile was reachable through BBB's search on 30 August, but the business has existed since 1962 and we should have looked for the headquarters profile rather than relying on one search.
- Why it happened
- A single BBB search on 30 August 2026 returned nothing, and we recorded that as the absence of a profile without opening a local Weight Watchers listing, which links to the headquarters profile.
- How we found out
- A fresh read of BBB on 14 October 2026, while writing the new Weight Watchers Med+ review.
- What we changed
- The review that returned on 14 October 2026 shows the C- rating and its reasons, and the rating is one of the reasons its transparency score is 7.0 rather than higher. The old review had been off the site since 11 September 2026.
- Does this clinic pay us?
- Not a partner. We have no commercial relationship with WeightWatchers and earn nothing from it.
Routine updates
Price re-checks, new listings, rescores. Nothing here was published as a false claim; it's the ordinary record of price checks, new listings and rescores as we verify more, dated and written in our own words at the time.
name the clinic in the brand-access plan rows; log the approved trt-picks cross-site removal
AgelessRx review (editorial, non-partner): GLP-1 menu read live 2026-10-16
Port the 'not the same company' note to /review (disambiguation field), add AgelessRx logo
Finder state, payment and insurance-support filters; state pages list the clinics that serve each state; downloadable price index with Dataset markup and how to cite; price history and what changed on every review; state and budget check, two-plan comparison and intake questions; cost after the dose rises
score the public homepage price ($73/mo), keep the $65 link price as a dated line; Yucca: Black Friday sale as dated promo rows
Reader-facing English everywhere the review blocks render: no tool names, no internal wording
Review pages: fix contradictions, clinic logos, complete plan tables, Before you sign up facts, record-contradiction gate
Remove rendered forum sections from review pages (owner, 15 Oct)
Cross-site prices: two dated reads of the clinic's own pages, no 29 Oct expiry (owner, 15 Oct)
no link while its sheet rows are Pending; weekly landing-page wording check (report only)
Maximus weight loss (ClickDealer #180856), review from live reads 14 Oct; FDA listing exception
price unit says sale (ticker + titles show the $69 as the sale it is)
CoreAge Rx: rescore on public $79/mo, 12-month plan paid in full (owner, 14 Oct)
plan length (or 'not stated') on 13 clinics from live reads 14 Oct; LIV Body $179 -> $99, rescored
every price in a title or description carries its plan length (owner, 14 Oct)
score $69 (store twelve-month supply, $828) + daily watch on the scored price (owner, 14 Oct)
Wellmedr is now Welludr: shown as "Welludr (formerly Wellmedr)", rename recorded from its own site (14 Oct)
cost sections + reviews/cost titles for Direct Meds, Embody, Wellmedr (owner, 14 Oct)
Trimi, FormBlends and Weight Watchers Med+ (non-partners, publish 2026-10-14)
Ro, Noom Med, GobyMeds (non-partners, publishOn 2026-10-14)
bring Ivím, TrimRx, Lavender Sky, Hims forward to 2026-10-14 (owner, 14 Oct)
unscored price split by reason (owner, 14 Oct)
Break displayed-score ties by partnership and review evidence
Fix consecutive ranks and prioritize active partners at equal scores
Complete BBB partner coverage and correct badges, disclosures and highlight winners
No label on partners without PICK; disclosure points to a computed partner list; hero cards follow commercial eligibility and stay true
Open FDA letter keeps a partner to its own pages; no PICK badge with an open FDA letter or BBB D/F (owner rules 2026-10-12)
ClickDealer partner (#182376, $200, payout unverified); kept out of other clinics' placements while its FDA letter is open; Zevay GLP-1 held
Nu Image Medical: Trackdesk partner, pricing unscored, claims policy enforced
Scheduled reviews: Ivím (15 Oct), TrimRx (17 Oct), Lavender Sky (19 Oct), Hims & Hers (22 Oct)
Oak $119 + pricing re-score, Embody gum removed + treatment re-score, SkinnyRx lock scoped (owner 2026-10-11)
Embody, Direct Meds, Oak, SkinnyRx: People-also-ask FAQs, reviews+cost SERP titles, internal links (owner 2026-10-11)
brand GLP-1 prices read live for the Ozempic cluster (2026-10-09)
paused by us, links out of every paid placement (tracking ID lost)
order by expected earnings per click + fix dashes in today's article
pricing 8.0 -> 6.5 on price evidence (total 8.3 -> 7.9, stays #1); 34+ article mentions updated
bundle claims: detector ported and armed (--strict in check + build); 2 contradicted + 15 unsupported resolved
best-online-semaglutide price tiers rebuilt; 96 clinic claims the records don't support, fixed
"$149/mo microdosing" option removed. Not offered on Gala's live site
Gala headline $129 prepaid year (rescored 6.0 -> 7.0, partner, corrected); Ageless two-grid finding, 12-month blocked
12-month cost: up-front billing for Gala/Ageless/Shed, "billing schedule not stated" label; BBH tirzepatide record
Wellorithm $247/mo with a $147 first month (was $147/mo); 27 articles corrected
Pallas Health on PAUSE (programme paused by the partner, 2026-10-05)
no affiliate link (Peptides key must not attach)
review searched GLP-1 brands whether or not they pay (9 new non-partner clinics)
Empower Pharmacy warning letter 738238 (2026-09-18) on Willow
sameness-claim transparency cap (5.0); Oak, Synergy Rx, Found capped; WellMedr treatment 8.0 -> 7.5
asides become commas or parentheses, no period inside a button label
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.