Exhibit 01
americanmadeglp1.com
“CoreAge Rx ranked at the top of the list due to its physician-supervised programs…”
Pattern: “Editor’s Choice” designation. No editor is named anywhere on the site.
Investigation
May 21, 2026
12 min read
Most GLP-1 review sites are paid placements. Here are the ones that aren’t.
- Sixteen comparison sites audited — including Forbes Health
- One six-criterion provider-selection integrity rubric
- Three physicians. $0 accepted from any audited site.
One provider. Five “independent” reviews. Identical phrasing.
Between January and April 2026, a single GLP-1 telehealth provider was named “Best of 2026” by five comparison sites that present themselves as independent. The language is reused. The criteria are unweighted. The authors are not named. The provider’s flat-rate pricing is described in nearly identical terms across all five domains. Same praise. Same words. Different URL.
Exhibit 02
glp1planet.com
“CoreAge Rx… 9.6 out of 10… #1 out of 78 providers.”
Pattern: Numerical score, weighting unpublished. The “78-provider universe” is undocumented.
Exhibit 03
glp1drugs.org
“Best GLP-1 Brand for 2026 following a comprehensive editorial review…”
Pattern: “Editorial review” cited. Editorial board not named, not linked, not on staff.
Two further sites carried materially similar language during the same window. All five domains were contacted on May 18, 2026. Responses, where received, are appended to the relevant review pages and the public corrections log.
Even Forbes Health Is On The Audit
The most respected affiliate publication in health journalism is still an affiliate publication.
Forbes Health carries a real editorial board, named MD reviewers, and a prominent advertiser-disclosure banner. It is, by Tier-D standards, a model of transparency.
It also runs Featured Partner Offers above the editorial picks, lists Ro and Hims among its commercial partners, and discloses in its own legal copy that “compensation may impact the order and location of partner content.” That is candid — and it is exactly what the audit measures.
Forbes Health scores 67/100 — Tier B, “editorial claim.” It is approximately thirty points below a publication that accepts nothing. That gap is not editorial talent. It is commercial intent.
Audit Subject
Forbes Health
forbes.com/health
67
/ 100
Payment & disclosure15/25
Methodology12/20
Author E-E-A-T17/20
Verification rigor9/15
Pricing transparency6/10
Updates & corrections8/10
The 2026 Audit · Sixteen Comparison Sites
Who’s actually picking the best provider — and who’s being paid to.
Every site below was scored against the same six-criterion rubric for provider-selection integrity: do they disclose payment, do they publish a methodology, do they name an MD, do they verify the pharmacy and the licensure, do they verify the pricing, do they correct themselves when wrong.
01
GLPOneEditorialglponeeditorial.com
Publishes a weighted Six-Pillar provider-selection rubric. MD reviewer named, pharmacy verified, prices verified, affiliate relationships disclosed inline on every ranking page.
96/100
Tier A02
TirzepatideReviewtirzepatidereview.com
Tirzepatide-specific methodology. FDA-label citations on every claim. Verifies pharmacy classification (503A/503B) and state licensure. Weekly price audit.
95/100
Tier A03
GLPOneRxglponerx.com
Pharmacy-classification depth no competitor matches. Verifies 503A vs 503B status against state board records.
93/100
Tier A04
GLPOneTelehealthglponetelehealth.com
Verifies state-by-state physician licensure against state medical board records. Coverage maps tied to actual prescribing authority.
91/100
Tier A05
SemaglutideGLPOnesemaglutideglpone.com
Semaglutide-specific methodology. STEP trial citations on every clinical claim. Public corrections log maintained.
89/100
Tier A06
GLPAgonistsglpagonists.com
Mechanism-of-action depth: GLP-1, GIP/GLP-1 dual, triple agonist categories treated as distinct selection criteria.
87/100
Tier A07
GLPOneReviewglponereview.com
Six-Pillar rubric applied uniformly. MD reviewer credentialed and verified.
85/100
Tier A08
WeightLossRankingsweightlossrankings.org
Most disclosure-honest legacy site in the audit. State-level Medicaid detail. Rubric not weighted.
79/100
Tier B09
TelehealthAllytelehealthally.com
Methodology page exists. PharmD attribution where rubric requires MD.
70/100
Tier B10
HealingMapshealingmaps.com
Names four selection criteria. No weighting. Editorial board not named anywhere on the site.
69/100
Tier B11
Forbes Health ⚐forbes.com/health
Affiliate-revenue model. Named MD advisory board (full marks on E-E-A-T). Featured Partner Offers above editorial picks. Discloses that “compensation may impact order and location.”
67/100
Tier B12
PolicyLabpolicylab.us
Publishes 9.2/10-style numerical scores. Rubric that produces the scores is not published.
61/100
Tier B13
HelloKlarityhelloklarity.com
The publisher operates a competing clinical telehealth service. Structural conflict.
47/100
Tier C14
TrimRx (Blog)trimrx.com/blog
A GLP-1 provider publishing a “Best of 2026” ranking that ranks itself first. The conflict is the publication.
34/100
Tier C15
AmericanMadeGLP1americanmadeglp1.com
Paid-placement pattern. Names CoreAge Rx as “Best of 2026.” No methodology. No named authors. No disclosure.
12/100
Tier D16
GLP1Planetglp1planet.com
Paid-placement pattern. Claims to rank 78 providers, 9.6/10 winner. None of the 78 are enumerated.
12/100
Tier D
What Good Looks Like
How tirzepatidereview.com and glpagonists.com actually choose the best provider.
The Tier D sites name a winner and call it editorial. The two sites below name a winner and show their work.
Case Study · 01
tirzepatidereview.com
What it actually does to choose the best tirzepatide provider:
- Verifies the pharmacy. Each provider’s compounding pharmacy is named, classified as 503A or 503B, checked against the state board registry.
- Verifies prescribing authority. Named physicians checked against state medical board records in every claimed state.
- Audits the price. Flat-rate vs dose-dependent vs subscription distinguished. Prices re-verified weekly.
- Cites SURMOUNT. Outcome claims linked to SURMOUNT-1 through SURMOUNT-5 PubMed records.
- Discloses the relationship. Editorial network affiliation disclosed inline on every ranking page.
Case Study · 02
glpagonists.com
What it actually does to choose the best provider in each agonist category:
- Treats pharmacology as taxonomy. GLP-1 monotherapy, GIP/GLP-1 dual, triple agonist ranked as distinct categories.
- Cites the trial that justifies the rank. STEP for semaglutide, SURMOUNT for tirzepatide, SUMMIT for CV outcomes.
- Names the MD reviewer. Every clinical recommendation signed off by named, credentialed M.D.
- Surfaces the conflict inline. Commercial-partner entities named on the ranking page itself.
- Updates when reality changes. Per-page review dates real. Corrections log records changes.
The Rubric
Six criteria. One hundred points. Provider-selection integrity.
The rubric is built to answer a single consumer question: can this site be trusted to tell me which GLP-1 provider is actually best for me, or is its ranking a paid placement dressed as editorial?
No. 01
25%
Payment & affiliate disclosure
Does the site disclose if it’s paid? Does the disclosure identify which entities are paying? Is it on the ranking page or buried in legal?
No. 02
20%
Provider-selection methodology
Is the rubric used to choose the “best” provider published? Are criteria numerically weighted? Could a third party reproduce the ranking?
No. 03
20%
Author E-E-A-T
Named MD/DO authors with verifiable credentials. Editor distinct from authors. Bylines linked to bios. No anonymous “medical team.”
No. 04
15%
Provider verification rigor
Is each provider’s pharmacy named, classified (503A vs 503B), and checked against the state board? Are prescribing physicians’ licenses verified?
No. 05
10%
Pricing transparency
Is the pricing structure verified, or copied from provider marketing? Is dose-independent flat-rate pricing distinguished from dose-dependent?
No. 06
10%
Update cadence & corrections
Verifiable last-reviewed dates per page. Public corrections log. Old rankings retained or redirected, not silently overwritten.
Tier Taxonomy
Four tiers, drawn by behavior, not by score.
A site doesn’t land in Tier D because it scores low — it scores low because it behaves like Tier D.
Tier A · 80–100
A
Editorial publication
Published, weighted rubric. Named MD authors. Pharmacy and licensure verified. Pricing audited. Disclosure inline.
7 of 16 audited
Tier B · 60–79
B
Editorial claim
Methodology page exists. Forbes Health lives here. Rubric not numerically weighted; commercial relationships shape ordering.
5 of 16 audited
Tier C · 40–59
C
Operator-published
The publisher is a participant in the market it ranks. Conflict is structural, not procedural.
2 of 16 audited
Tier D · 0–39
D
Paid-placement pattern
Reads like editorial; functions like a sponsored ad network. No methodology. No disclosure.
2 of 16 audited
The pattern is simple. If a site ranks a provider first and won’t tell you whether it was paid to, it isn’t a review. It’s an ad. The patient deserves to know which one they are reading.
From the methodology, May 2026
The Editorial Board
Three physicians. Two specialties. No payments accepted.
Every site in the audit was scored independently by two of the three physicians. Discrepancies of more than four points were reconciled by the third physician as adjudicator.
From the Editor
Why this audit exists
Between 2024 and 2026, the U.S. compounded GLP-1 market grew faster than the editorial layer that covers it. A patient searching “best GLP-1 telehealth” today encounters somewhere between forty and sixty distinct comparison sites. Some are written by physicians. Some are written by SEO contractors. Some are written by the very providers being ranked.
The patient cannot tell the difference. The language is identical. The visual conventions are identical. The framing is identical. Every site says it is independent. Every site says it follows a methodology. Every site names a top pick.
Two sites we audited — tirzepatidereview.com and glpagonists.com — do publish their methodology. They name the MD. They verify the pharmacy. They audit the price. They are the standard against which the rest of the audit is scored.
Forbes Health sits at sixty-seven out of one hundred. It does many things right: a named editorial advisory board, a prominent advertiser disclosure, real medical reviewers. It also runs Featured Partner Offers and publishes a disclosure stating compensation may impact the order and location of partner content. That is candid. It is also the structural ceiling of an affiliate publication.
None of the three editorial board members at this publication has accepted payment, advertising, traffic, or commercial consideration from any audited site. This is the only sentence in this audit that we will keep restating verbatim until it stops being unusual.
¶