Nature of Reviews

Aminoscope reviews providers and products in peptides, GLP-1 medications, and longevity therapeutics. This page explains exactly how those assessments are made, what can and cannot influence them, and how to read our partner labels and link types. It is the companion to our Disclosures and editorial policy, written so you can trust what a ranking on this site does — and does not — mean.

1. Our Editorial Criteria

We assess providers and products against consistent, evidence-led criteria, including:

• Evidence and efficacy — what the primary literature and labels say about the therapy, reported as effect sizes and durations rather than adjectives.
• Safety and risk — known side effects, contraindications, monitoring needs, and the quality of the safety data behind a claim.
• Legitimacy and oversight — licensing, clinician involvement, pharmacy sourcing, and regulatory standing of a provider.
• Cost and access — transparent pricing, what is actually included, and realistic access pathways.
• Transparency — how clearly a provider communicates terms, ingredients, sourcing, and risks to the people who use it.

The detailed standard behind these criteria — primary sources only, live-verified citations, magnitude over vibes — is set out in our methodology.

2. No Provider Pays for a Favorable Verdict

No provider can buy a favorable review, a higher ranking, a better score, or the softening of a safety statement. Verdicts are determined solely by the evidence and the criteria above. A provider with a commercial relationship is held to the same bar as one without; a provider that performs poorly is described accordingly regardless of any partnership; and declining to partner with us never results in a worse assessment. This is the editorial firewall, and it is absolute.

3. How Monetized Partners Appear

Aminoscope is reader-supported. Some of the providers we review are monetized partners, meaning we may earn a commission if you start care through our link, at no extra cost to you — managed primarily through the Katalys network. Two things follow, and we want both to be plain:

• Partners are clearly labeled. Where a link or placement is commercial, it is disclosed as such near the content.
• Partners may be shown first by commercial arrangement — but they are still assessed editorially. Display order can reflect a partnership; the verdict, score, and safety assessment attached to that partner cannot. Ranking position on a commercial module reflects placement, not a claim that the partner is editorially superior.

4. Non-Partner Links

We also cover providers and products we have no commercial relationship with. For those, we link directly — including with standard tracking parameters (such as UTM tags) where useful for our own analytics — without earning a commission. A non-partner is reviewed by the same criteria as a partner; the absence of a commercial relationship neither helps nor hurts its assessment.

5. Coverage and Currency

We do not review every provider or product on the market; coverage reflects reader interest, editorial priorities, and the strength of available evidence. Pricing, availability, and regulatory status change frequently — always verify current details on a provider's own site before acting, and treat our reviews as research, not medical advice. Found something out of date? Tell us through our corrections process.