How we verify a claim

Why “is X legit” is answered in two parts

The question usually means two different things at once. The first is “will I be defrauded — is this a real company that will send me something?” For every provider on this site the answer is yes: these are operating US businesses with real clinicians, not storefronts that take your card and vanish.

The second question is the one that matters and almost nobody asks it plainly: what am I actually being sold? A $149 subscription and a $1,899 one are not the same product at different prices. One is usually compounded medication; the other is FDA-approved. Answering only the first question, which is what most “is it legit” content does, is how people end up surprised.

The distinction the whole site turns on

FDA-approved GLP-1s are the branded drugs — Wegovy, Zepbound, Ozempic, Mounjaro and the approved oral versions — reviewed by the FDA for safety and effectiveness.

Compounded semaglutide and tirzepatide are prepared by compounding pharmacies. They are not FDA-approved products. Compounding is legal and long-established, and the FDA is explicit that it neither approves nor licenses compounding facilities. What the FDA has objected to, repeatedly, is marketing that implies a compounded product is the same as an approved one. Since September 2025 it has issued roughly 85 warning letters to telehealth companies on exactly that point.

We classify every provider as compounded, FDA-approved, or both, from what the company states on its own site. Currently: 54 compounded only, 36 both, 17 FDA-approved only. Where a company changed during 2025 or 2026 — several did, under regulatory pressure — the record shows its current state and says so.

What counts as a source

For prices, fees and what is supplied: the company’s own site and documentation. Retail or press descriptions are corroboration, never the origin of a figure.

For anything adverse: primary documents wherever they exist. FDA warning letters, court filings, state attorney-general actions, regulator press releases. We hold 87 regulatory or legal actions across 75 companies. 86 of them link to the regulator’s or the court’s own published document. The remaining 1 links to a secondary report of a real action — a law firm’s case note, a trade publication, a filing summary — because we have not yet located the underlying document. It is marked as such on the page. Nothing is recorded without a source.

Separately, we hold 11 other signals: things that are sourced and worth publishing but are not actions by anyone — complaint volumes recorded by the Better Business Bureau, a third-party report, a commercial dispute between two companies. They are shown under their own heading and are never counted as actions. Adding the two together would inflate every number on this site, which is precisely the thing we exist to point out in other people.

What we deliberately do not say

We have not tested these services, and we do not score them. There is no five-star rating here because a rating would imply a testing process we do not run. We do not say a company is a scam — that is a legal characterisation, and the record either contains an enforcement action or it does not.

We do not tell you whether a medication is right for you, what dose to take, or whether compounded medication is safe for your situation. Those are clinical questions and this is not a clinic. An absence of regulatory action on a company’s record means we found nothing, not that there is nothing.

Money

Some provider links earn a commission. The companies paying the most are frequently the ones with the most on their record, and their actions are published on their own pages, above the link. If that arrangement ever bends, the site stops being worth reading — so it is stated here, on every provider page, and in the footer of every page on the site.

Every action on record → · Affiliate disclosure →