Editorial Policy

Every claim should be traceable back to a source a reader can inspect.

GLP-1 Insights publishes practical health education about GLP-1 medications, side effects, nutrition, telehealth access, and medication costs. The job is simple: show the actual numbers, link to the evidence, say what we do not know, and fix mistakes fast when we find them.

What readers should expect

  • Published research, FDA materials, and major clinical guidance are prioritized.
  • Commercial pages disclose affiliate relationships before the first monetized link.
  • Articles show when they were last reviewed and how many sources were cited.
  • Errors are corrected with updated copy rather than quietly ignored.

How research is done

Articles start with source collection, not drafting. We look for primary research and official materials first, then build the article around what the sources actually say.

  1. Search for relevant studies and official documents on the specific question.
  2. Open the actual source page before citing it.
  3. Record the exact title, authors, journal or agency, year, URL, and the claim being used.
  4. Only cite sources that were directly checked for that claim.

If a source does not support the exact statement, that statement should be revised or removed.

Citation standards

Our default evidence stack is:

  • PubMed-indexed studies and reviews
  • FDA prescribing information, drug safety communications, and labeling
  • ClinicalTrials.gov records when trial status or design matters
  • Major clinical guidelines and society statements

We do not treat marketing pages, anonymous forums, or unsourced health claims as interchangeable with primary evidence.

How provider reviews are evaluated

Telehealth and pharmacy comparison pages use a separate reporting standard. Price matters, but it is not enough on its own.

  • Real listed pricing, including membership fees and refill costs when visible
  • Medication type and sourcing clarity
  • Expected wait times and onboarding friction
  • Support quality, follow-up cadence, and refill transparency
  • Reader risk factors such as hidden fees, vague supply language, or weak refund terms

If an affiliate partner has a meaningful downside, the page should say so in plain language.

Affiliate disclosure and conflicts

Some pages may contain affiliate links. When they do, the disclosure should appear before the first affiliate link, and the page should still describe the tradeoffs honestly.

Affiliate relationships do not guarantee a favorable recommendation. A weak option should still be called weak.

Corrections and updates

Health content ages. When evidence changes, pricing shifts, or an error is found, the page should be updated and reviewed again.

  • Each article shows a last-reviewed date.
  • Older content may display a notice that it is being checked for updates.
  • Factual errors should be corrected as soon as they are confirmed.

To report a correction, use the contact page.

What we do not claim

  • No fabricated testimonials
  • No fake “As Seen In” media logos
  • No physician review-board claims until that program exists and is active
  • No replacement for medical advice from a licensed clinician

Trust signals should come from transparent process, not decorative credibility.