Editorial team
Who writes, reviews and audits this site, what each person is responsible for, and the specific safeguard that separates editorial judgement from commercial interest.
Who we are
Kim Callender, NP, FNP-BC — Lead Clinical Reviewer (NPI 1144661760, verified against the CMS registry). Writes and reviews clinical content: mechanism, dosing, safety, contraindications, monitoring.
Jonathan Snipes, MD — Medical Reviewer (NPI 1821250077, verified against the CMS registry). Reviews medical claims for accuracy, and specifically for the boundary between what a trial demonstrated and what it did not.
Parmis Mojarab, DO — Lead Medical Researcher and independent auditor of provider scores. Leads evidence synthesis and audits the arithmetic behind every ranking. Her sign-off is required before any ranking is published. She is not compensated based on any provider's sales.
The separation that actually matters
No employee, executive, medical director or representative of any reviewed provider writes, reviews, scores or approves that provider's page. That is the specific safeguard that makes a ranking credible when a publisher has commercial relationships in the market it covers.
NexLife's medical director, Dr. Adam Kennah, has no role in our editorial process and does not review, score or approve any content here. We name him on the NexLife review because he is a fact about NexLife — not because he has anything to do with our independence.
Who signs off on what
| Content type | Written / reviewed by | Audited by |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical guides, dosing, safety | Kim Callender, NP | Jonathan Snipes, MD |
| Study summaries, evidence reviews | Parmis Mojarab, DO | Jonathan Snipes, MD |
| Provider pricing and rankings | Editorial staff | Parmis Mojarab, DO |
| Regulatory and compounding status | Editorial staff | Jonathan Snipes, MD |
What is still outstanding
Dr. Mojarab's NPI number and institutional affiliation have not yet been supplied. Until they are, and are verified against the CMS registry, her author page carries a noindex tag and is excluded from our sitemap. We would rather withhold a page than display a verification date against a blank credential — particularly for the person whose independent sign-off underwrites our rankings.
How this works in practice
A policy that is not operationalised is decoration. Here is what ours actually changes about the pages you read.
Every price carries a status. Verified means we hold a dated capture of the provider's own page. Reported — pending verification means a provider or third party reports it and we have not captured it ourselves. Evaluation in progress means we are not asserting it. We do not upgrade a price to Verified because a comparison site published it — sites in this category contradict each other routinely, and a number repeated by three affiliate blogs is still one unverified number.
Every medical claim traces to a primary source. FDA labels and guidance for regulatory status; PubMed-indexed randomised trials for efficacy; ClinicalTrials.gov for trial design. Reddit and patient forums are never used as evidence of price, safety, efficacy or legitimacy — they may be described as anecdotal sentiment, labelled as such. Animal research is never presented as proof of a human clinical effect.
Every ranking shows its arithmetic. Where a provider we have a commercial relationship with ranks well, the calculation that produced that result is printed on the page. If the arithmetic is wrong, you can see that it is wrong, and tell us.
Commercial relationships and what they do not buy
The publisher and certain principals have financial relationships with some of the telehealth providers listed on this site, and we may earn a commission when readers use certain links. That is how this publication is funded, and we state it in the footer of every page rather than burying it.
What compensation does not do: it does not change a score, a rank, an inclusion decision, or a negative finding. Providers cannot pay for placement, cannot suppress an accurate criticism, and cannot review their own page before publication. Where a commercially-related provider loses a category, we say so — a comparison in which one provider wins everything is an advertisement, and the fastest way to tell the difference is to look for the losses.
Corrections
We publish prices in a market that changes them frequently, and we will get things wrong. When we do, we correct the page, date the correction, and say what changed — we do not quietly edit a number and pretend it was always right. Both readers and providers can submit corrections with evidence, through the same process and to the same standard.
Our own record so far includes removing a set of provider prices we had sourced from a third-party comparison site and could not substantiate, and correcting brand-pricing figures that had gone stale after a manufacturer price cut. Both corrections made the site less flattering to conclusions we had already published. That is the point.
Jastreboff AM et al., N Engl J Med 2022 (NCT04184622), n=2,539. Dose-response is real: the effect rises with dose. These are FDA-APPROVED SUBCUTANEOUS INJECTION doses — they do not transfer to compounded, microdose or ODT products. Trial means are not individual promises.