The principle in one sentence
Reader trust is the only durable moat a content site has. Optimizing for commission burns it; optimizing for the answer a doctor would give compounds it. The math: trust-led picks generate roughly five times the lifetime value per reader through referral compound, repeat traffic, and higher conversion next year.
So we score every partner the way a physician would evaluate where to send a patient - then publish the scorecard.
The 10 axes
Each axis is scored 1 to 5. Weighted sum out of 50. Two axes carry 1.5x weight because they are the load-bearing safety signals: patient-safety screening and product-quality verification. Everything else is 1x.
1. Patient-safety screening (weight 1.5)
Does the service actually screen for medical contraindications before prescribing? Does the GLP-1 intake ask about personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or MEN-2 syndrome? Does the testosterone intake ask about prostate cancer risk and cardiovascular history? Does the PT-141 intake ask about blood pressure? A "yes" requires not just the question on a form, but evidence the answer is reviewed by a clinician before script issue.
- 5 - real clinician reviews intake AND has a documented refusal pathway for inappropriate patients
- 3 - intake form collects relevant history but clinical review is async and signs may be missed
- 1 - rubber-stamp intake; everyone gets approved
2. Product-quality verification (weight 1.5)
Is the dispensing pharmacy named publicly? Is it a 503A patient-specific compounder or a 503B FDA-registered outsourcing facility? Are USP 797 (sterile preparation) and USP 800 (hazardous drugs) standards documented? Are Certificates of Analysis (third-party HPLC potency and sterility) available per lot? Is the active pharmaceutical ingredient sourced from a verified API supplier?
- 5 - 503A or 503B partner publicly named; COA available per lot; USP compliance documented
- 3 - pharmacy compliant but partner not publicly named; COA available on request
- 1 - no pharmacy disclosure; no COA path
3. Informed consent and transparency (weight 1.0)
Does the service tell the patient what they are agreeing to? Is the off-label status disclosed (compounded GLP-1 is not the same regulatory category as FDA-approved Wegovy)? Are black-box warnings surfaced? Are alternatives mentioned, including the insurance-covered brand-name path when applicable?
4. Prescriber model (weight 1.0)
Is the clinician a licensed MD, DO, NP, or PA in the patient's state? Is the consult substantive - a video visit, a live chat, or at minimum an async exchange the prescriber actually reviews? Is the prescriber compensated by salary or per-script? Per-script creates a perverse incentive to approve borderline cases.
5. Continuity of care (weight 1.0)
What happens after the first shipment? Are follow-up consults included or paid? Is there a system for monitoring side effects and titrating dose based on response? Is there a stopping protocol? Is there a path to reach a clinician for adverse events outside business hours?
6. Conflict of interest disclosure (weight 1.0)
Does the service tell patients when it is NOT the right fit? Does it refer out for cases that need specialist care? Does it acknowledge when the insurance-covered brand-name option would be better for the patient even though it loses the sale?
7. Pricing transparency and ethics (weight 1.0)
Is the full cost visible before sign-up - medication, consult fee, shipping, subscription? No bait-and-switch from a "first month free" headline to a $300/month auto-renew. Can the subscription be paused or cancelled without fees or friction?
8. State coverage (weight 1.0)
Does the service ship and prescribe in all 50 states plus DC? State-specific exclusions are not a deal-breaker (some are imposed by state telehealth rules) but they need to be visible on the landing page, not buried in checkout.
9. Independent reputation (weight 1.0)
Better Business Bureau, Trustpilot, Reddit threads, forum sentiment that we have sniff-tested for authenticity. Partner-curated testimonials are excluded. Patterns of complaints (billing disputes, prescription delays, unresponsive support) lower the score regardless of total review count.
10. Specialization vs shotgun (weight 1.0)
Does the partner specialize in this product (direct product page, dose options, education before sign-up) or shotgun a category (generic landing, opaque pricing)? Specialization usually reflects clinical depth in the product line. A "longevity stack" partner who lists 30 SKUs they cannot meaningfully clinically support is shotgun.
Tiers and what they mean
| Tier A · 40+ (out of 50) | Primary CTA on the matching peptide page and cheat sheet card. The partner has met the doctor-ethical bar across both load-bearing axes and most of the others. |
| Tier B · 30-39 | Listed in the trust matrix as an alternative with the specific trade-offs disclosed. May be the right pick for a specific reader profile (price-sensitive, looking for specialization, etc.) but not the default. |
| Below 30 | Not linked. Not on the matrix. Not in the cheat sheet. |
| Skip Tier (categorical) | Categories we refuse to link regardless of score: med spas selling GLP-1 alongside Botox; vendors without 503A pharmacy disclosure; anyone marketing salt-form variations as bioequivalent; clinics with documented FDA warning letters or state board actions. |
What disqualifies a partner regardless of score
- Documented FDA warning letter for the partner pharmacy in the last 36 months
- State board enforcement action against the dispensing pharmacy or any named clinician
- Selling compounded products as "FDA-approved" (they are not - they are compounded under the 503A framework)
- Marketing salt-form variations (e.g., semaglutide sodium) as bioequivalent to the FDA-approved active
- Approving patients without contraindication screening that a reasonable clinician would require
- Auto-enrollment subscription that bills a patient who has explicitly cancelled
- Misleading "free trial" structures that lock the patient into a long subscription before they have used the product
Our conflict of interest
We earn affiliate commission when readers sign up through a partner link. That is the business model. The mitigations:
- The methodology is public. You are reading it. Every score, every reason, every disqualifying line is visible. If our picks do not match the scorecard, the scorecard contradicts us in plain sight.
- We link the framework winner, not the commission winner. If a Tier B partner pays 50% more commission than a Tier A partner, we still link the Tier A. We log every case where these conflict in the changelog so the pattern is auditable.
- We name what we will not link. The Skip Tier section on every vendor matrix names partners we have explicitly declined.
- We name when we are pending audit. A partner card flagged "Watch: scorecard in progress" means we have the affiliate relationship but have not completed the doctor-ethical audit yet. Read those with caution and default to verified Tier A partners until the scorecard publishes.
Recent framework actions (audit log)
The framework only works if we follow it publicly. Every Tier change, Skip Tier removal, and disqualifier finding is logged here so readers can audit our reasoning in plain sight.
2026-05-30 · Skip Tier · Strut Health removed
What: Strut Health LLC (Katalys Program 384) removed from all live affiliate placements. Previously our top GLP-1 pick.
Why: The FDA issued Strut a warning letter on 2026-02-20 (Reference 721448) citing violations of FD&C Act sections 502(a) and 502(bb) for false or misleading marketing on compounded semaglutide and tirzepatide product labels - Strut's site depicted product labels bearing the Strut name when Strut was not the actual compounder, rendering the labels misbranded. An FDA warning letter for the partner in the last 36 months is one of the named categorical disqualifiers in this framework.
How we found it: The first cycle of the doctor-ethical audit (run within hours of publishing this framework) surfaced the letter via FDA database search. We verified directly against the FDA warning-letter index before acting.
Earliest re-audit: 12 months post-FDA-corrective-action (~Feb 2027 at earliest) with documented marketing remediation. We are not soliciting reinstatement. Read the FDA letter ->
2026-05-30 · Under Review · TMates GLP-1 pulled from primary · Updated 2026-05-31 (correction)
What: TMates (Katalys Program 1471) pulled from primary placement on cheat sheet, calculator, and matrix Trust Tier. Held in "Under Review" pending verification of three concerns.
Initial finding (2026-05-30): Public-information audit returned composite 17/50 - below the 30-point linking threshold. Three concerns from third-party reviewer aggregators: (1) alleged on-site claim that compounded products are "FDA-approved" (would be categorical disqualifier); (2) BBB complaint of "$500 charged for an unwanted subscription renewal after requesting cancellation" (auto-enrollment disqualifier candidate); (3) alleged Trustpilot review-count fraud claim.
Correction (2026-05-31, direct site verification): The framework requires correcting findings when direct evidence contradicts third-party sources. Direct Playwright capture of tmates.com homepage + /products/semaglutide + /products/tirzepatide shows the "FDA-approved" allegation is refuted - all three pages display the honest framing: "Compounded medications are subject to strict quality and purity standards, but are not evaluated by the FDA for safety, quality or efficacy." The site also openly states "TMates is not a 503A or 503B compounding facility", transparently disclosing the marketplace structure. Pricing is visible pre-signup. The "FDA-approved" disqualifier flag is withdrawn. Composite score revised from 17 to ~25/50.
Why TMates stays Under Review: Composite ~25/50 is still below the 30-point linking floor. Three concerns remain: (a) BBB billing complaint still requires separate verification (on-site cancel-anytime language is not the same as confirming a billing system honors it); (b) the alleged Trustpilot review-count claim was not on the pages we captured but may exist on other marketing surfaces; (c) the partner 503A/B pharmacy that performs the compounding is not publicly named. Until these resolve, route to Sesame Care or Gala. This correction itself is the framework working - we update findings when direct evidence contradicts third-party signal.
2026-05-30 · Promoted · Sesame Care to primary GLP-1 partner
What: Sesame Care (Katalys Program 239) promoted to primary GLP-1 partner across semaglutide, tirzepatide, and PT-141 surfaces.
Why: Highest composite in the audited cohort (34.5/50, Tier B verging on A). Marketplace model surfaces brand-name Wegovy + insurance pathway honestly alongside cash-pay compounded (highest informed-consent transparency). Real video consult with US-licensed provider (best prescriber model). No FDA warning letter, no disqualifying complaints, transparent pricing.
Path to Tier A: Signup walkthrough to verify MTC/MEN-2 contraindication screening is gating (not just informational) and to confirm prescriber consult depth. Likely promotion to Tier A on next audit cycle.
2026-05-30 · Identity clarification · "Try Ageless" vs AgelessRx
Katalys program 1538 ("Ageless") routes to Try Ageless (tryageless.com, ~5 Trustpilot reviews, new operation) - confirmed by Bill clicking the affiliate link 2026-05-30. Distinct from the established AgelessRx brand (agelessrx.com, 1,800+ reviews) which has the same family name but is a separate operation. Audit applies to Try Ageless only. NAD+ routing on the cheat sheet currently points to Try Ageless via this Katalys link - flagged for re-evaluation once Try Ageless accumulates more operational signal OR a separate AgelessRx affiliate path is confirmed.
2026-05-31 · Editorial call · NAD+ stays Try Ageless, swap when better lands
Per editorial decision 2026-05-31: NAD+ routing on the cheat sheet stays as Try Ageless (Katalys 1538) for now, with the explicit understanding that the routing will swap when a better-aligned NAD+ partner clears the framework threshold. Try Ageless's audit composite is 26/50 - below the 30-point linking floor under standard framework rules - but the editorial call is to hold the current routing rather than drop the NAD+ affiliate link entirely while alternatives are pursued. The next NAD+ partner that scores Tier B or better (either a separate AgelessRx path outside Katalys 1538, or a new longevity vendor approval) takes the primary slot.
How often we re-audit
Quarterly. Partners change pricing, change pharmacy partners, change prescriber compensation models. We re-score every 90 days and publish the diff. If a partner deteriorates below their tier threshold mid-cycle, we drop them immediately rather than wait for the quarterly window.
The most recent audit cycle is published in the partner scorecard data file at /data/partner-scorecard.json with each partner's score, the date of the most recent audit, and the audit method (public site review, sign-up walkthrough, direct verification with Bill's personal account, etc.).
Where this lives in the site
- The GLP-1 telehealth matrix ranks the five Katalys partners (Sesame, Strut, TMates, Ageless, Gala) plus the Caution Tier we have not yet audited.
- The research peptide vendor matrix ranks the research-only vendors (Apollo via Refersion is the current Tier A).
- The 60-peptide cheat sheet routes each Tier 1 peptide to its primary partner per this framework.
- The peptide calculator surfaces the primary partner for each peptide when selected.
Questions, corrections, partner additions
If you operate a telehealth or compounding-pharmacy service and want to be evaluated, or if you have evidence one of our current partners has slipped below their tier - hello@readprotocolone.com. We read every email.