Editorial policy
The rules we hold ourselves to. The firewall. The corrections.
Last updated May 27, 2026
Independence
Metabolic Ledger Publishing LLC is not owned, funded, or operated by a telehealth platform, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, a pharmacy, an insurer, or a payer. No outside party — affiliate partner, sponsor, or otherwise — has editorial input, pre-publication review, or influence over our scoring rubric. Any change to that ownership or funding structure will be published on the About page within fourteen days.
FTC compliance
We follow the FTC’s 16 CFR Part 465 endorsement rules. Where a link earns us a commission, that material connection is disclosed clearly and conspicuously at the link, above the fold and adjacent to the link itself — not buried in a footer. Affiliate links are additionally marked with a visible “Affiliate link” badge, and every page that contains any affiliate link carries a page-level disclosure at the top.
We do not use endorsements from people who did not give them, and we do not present compensated reviews as independent ones. If a provider has given us a courtesy account for testing, that is disclosed too — even when the testing was on our own paid account.
Claims substantiation
Every efficacy claim — for a drug, a dose, a side-effect rate, a duration of effect, an off-ramp outcome — is tied to a primary source: a peer-reviewed clinical trial, a regulatory document, a FDA-approved label, or a dated provider page. We keep an internal claims log mapping every numeric or efficacy statement on the site to its primary source; the log is reviewed quarterly and on every page refresh. If we cannot locate a primary source for a claim, we do not print the claim. See our methodology for the citation hierarchy and how we handle conflicting sources.
The firewall: scoring versus affiliate relationships
Some providers we cover pay us a commission on referred sign-ups. Others do not. The provider scoring rubric is blind to that relationship: scoring is done against a published rubric by an editor who does not have visibility into commission tiers at the time of scoring. A provider that pays us nothing can still rank first. A provider that pays us well can still be flagged as the wrong choice for a given reader profile. If you ever read a review that reads like an advertisement, write to us — that is a failure of this firewall and we will treat it as a correction.
Reviewer-status discipline
Every page is labelled with a reviewer status (medically reviewed, awaiting medical review, or editorial content). We never apply the “medically reviewed” label without a named, credentialed physician who has actually read the page on a specific date. We do not use generic “medical board” labels and we do not retroactively claim reviews. The full review process — who is allowed to review, what they review for, and how fast they turn pages around — is on the methodology page.
Corrections
When we are wrong, we correct in place, append a dated correction note at the foot of the affected page, and update any related pages that referenced the erroneous claim. If the correction materially changed a recommendation (e.g. moved a provider in the comparison, or revised a dose-related statement), we also push a notification to the email list. We never silently rewrite. The running corrections log is below.
Corrections log
No corrections issued yet. This site launched May 27, 2026.
Reader contact and reporting an error
The fastest way to flag an error is the email address on the contact page. We acknowledge corrections within five business days and publish the resolution within fifteen.