Editorial Policy & Content Standards

All medical and educational content on PeptideProbe is created following these principles:

• Evidence-based sourcing: We cite published clinical trials, peer-reviewed studies, FDA prescribing information, and recognized medical guidelines. Where evidence is limited, we clearly state this.
• Clinical trial references: For peptides with FDA approval (semaglutide, tirzepatide, bremelanotide, tesamorelin), we reference the specific pivotal trials (e.g., STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS) with published results.
• Balanced presentation: We present both benefits and risks of every therapy. We do not minimize side effects, exaggerate benefits, or make unsupported claims.
• FDA status transparency: Every peptide page clearly displays its regulatory status — FDA-approved, compounded, or research. We explain what these categories mean for patients.
• No promotional bias: Our educational content is not influenced by provider listings or advertising. We do not accept payment in exchange for favorable editorial coverage.

All editorial content on PeptideProbe is written and reviewed by a named editor. We don't publish anonymous or organization-bylined content on medical topics.

• Megan Williams, Editor-in-Chief: Lead editor on peptide guides, long-tail questions, and blog posts. Responsible for verifying clinical claims against primary literature.
• Brian Williams, Research Editor & Co-founder: Lead researcher for directory methodology, cost research, and the annual State of Peptide Therapy report. Also serves as secondary reviewer on clinical content.

Neither editor is a physician. Our role is editorial — summarizing the evidence base accurately and citing it transparently — not clinical. Where a clinical judgment is involved (dosing, eligibility, safety), we defer to the cited source and advise readers to consult a prescriber.

Every medical page goes through this review process:

1. Research & drafting: Megan or Brian researches the topic using primary sources: PubMed, FDA.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov, and published prescribing information. No content is sourced from other directory sites or AI-generated filler.
2. Evidence verification: All clinical claims, dosing numbers, side-effect rates, and trial results are verified against the primary source. Trial names (STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, TRIUMPH) are referenced with specific arm and endpoint.
3. Secondary review:A second editor reviews clinical content before publication. For Megan's drafts, Brian reviews; for Brian's drafts, Megan reviews.
4. Regulatory compliance check: We verify content doesn't make FDA-unapproved therapeutic claims and that all language around compounded peptides and off-label use is accurate.
5. Ongoing updates: Pages are reviewed at least annually. Material updates (new FDA decisions, new trial readouts, dosing changes) trigger an immediate review. The date on the page reflects the last substantive review, not a cosmetic edit.

Provider listings in the PeptideProbe directory are held to the following standards:

• Verification: All provider applications are reviewed before publication. We verify that the practice exists, has a valid website, and has licensed practitioners.
• Accurate information: Provider listings must include accurate contact information, location, and services offered. Listings with inaccurate information are corrected or removed.
• No endorsement: Inclusion in our directory does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation of any provider. We encourage patients to independently verify credentials and qualifications.
• Review moderation: Patient reviews require email verification before the review enters moderation. Reviews are then read by an editor (typically within 3 business days) and published, held for clarification, or rejected. We reject reviews that appear promotional, include personal attacks, or name other patients. We do not currently verify that reviewers were treated by the provider they are reviewing — reviews should be treated as unverified patient experience, not validated testimony. Providers can respond publicly to reviews of their practice.

No practice pays to be in this directory. We have no paid provider tiers and no sponsored placements. Every practice is listed for free, and none has paid us anything. A listing cannot be bought, cannot be paid up the rankings, cannot be reworded for money, and a review cannot be paid to disappear.

We do use affiliate links. Some outbound links to products and services — lab testing, for example — earn us a commission if you buy through them. You never pay more because of it. Every one of these links is marked Ad where it appears, tagged rel="sponsored" for search engines, and carries a visible disclosure on the page — not buried down here.

What commission does not buy: which clinics appear in the directory, the order they appear in, what our peptide guides say, how we describe FDA or regulatory status, or which treatments we cover. Editorial and directory decisions are made before any commercial relationship is considered, and a commission has never changed one.

Outbound links:Links from a provider profile to the practice's own website are tagged rel="nofollow". We record these clicks for internal analytics only — see our privacy policy.

When this changes, this page changes first. If we add a revenue model — paid provider listings, display advertising, anything else — we will describe it here, label the affected content where it appears, and keep it out of our directory research. We will not introduce a revenue model quietly.

Editorial content (peptide guides, cost research, long-tail questions, blog) is not influenced by provider listings or tiers. We do not accept payment in exchange for favorable editorial coverage, and our directory research (including the annual State of Peptide Therapy report) includes providers regardless of whether they pay us.