Mission & Editorial Scope
The mission of GLP-1 Meds for Weight Loss is to be the most trustworthy independent source of information about GLP-1 medications on the internet. We cover semaglutide, tirzepatide, and related treatments — including branded medications (Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, Zepbound, Rybelsus), compounded alternatives, and the telehealth platforms that prescribe them.
Our editorial scope includes clinical explanations of how GLP-1 drugs work, honest reviews of products and platforms, head-to-head comparisons, practical guidance on diet, exercise, side effects, and cost, and regular updates on FDA developments and clinical trial results.
We have one editorial objective: serve the reader.
Every content decision is made by asking a single question: does this genuinely help someone understand or navigate GLP-1 medications? Content that exists to serve a commercial interest — rather than a reader's need — has no place on this site.
We write for adults who are considering, currently taking, or making decisions on behalf of someone using GLP-1 medications. Our tone is that of a knowledgeable friend — clinical where it needs to be, plain-spoken everywhere it can be. We do not write for academic audiences, and we do not write for search engines at the expense of clarity.
Content Types & Review Cycles
We publish six categories of content, each with its own standard for sourcing, depth, and review frequency. Every piece belongs to one of these types, and the relevant standard is applied from the first draft through publication and all subsequent updates.
In-depth explanations of how GLP-1 drugs work biologically, mechanism of action, clinical pharmacology, and trial-based efficacy data. Requires specialist medical review.
Reviewed: every 6 monthsIndependent evaluations of GLP-1 medications and telehealth platforms based on a standardized scoring rubric covering efficacy, cost, support, and patient experience.
Reviewed: every 3 monthsHead-to-head evaluations of two or more medications or platforms using identical criteria across each subject. No comparison may favor an affiliate partner without clinical justification.
Reviewed: every 3 monthsCoverage of FDA decisions, clinical trial publications, regulatory changes, and market developments. Published within 48 hours of a significant development with source links to primary documentation.
Reviewed: as events occurPatient-facing guidance on diet, exercise, side effect management, insurance navigation, and lifestyle while on GLP-1 therapy. Co-reviewed by relevant specialists (dietitian, pharmacist).
Reviewed: every 6 monthsAnswers to common reader questions. Concise, sourced, and written in plain language. Each answer links to a full-length article where available for readers who want deeper information.
Reviewed: every 6 monthsResearch & Sourcing Standards
Every factual claim that appears on this site must be traceable to a primary source. We operate a strict source hierarchy — the stronger the source, the more we rely on it. Secondary sources are used only to contextualize or explain primary data, never as the sole basis for a clinical claim.
Tier 1 — Primary Clinical Sources
Peer-reviewed clinical trial publications (NEJM, JAMA, The Lancet), FDA prescribing information and labeling, FDA press releases and guidance documents, ClinicalTrials.gov registry data
Tier 2 — Official Health Bodies
CDC, NIH, WHO, ADA (American Diabetes Association), Obesity Society, American Heart Association — used for epidemiological data, prevalence statistics, and clinical practice guidelines
Tier 3 — Reputable Health Journalism
STAT News, MedPage Today, Reuters Health — used only for news context, never as a source of clinical data. Must be traced to a primary source before the claim is included in our content
Tier 4 — Manufacturer Communications
Press releases and investor communications from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and other manufacturers — used only for product announcements and pricing information, never for efficacy claims. Always disclosed as manufacturer-sourced
What We Do Not Use as Sources
We do not cite Wikipedia, patient forums, social media posts, podcasts, YouTube videos, or anonymous internet sources as factual references for clinical claims. We do not cite other health websites — including Healthline, WebMD, or similar — as primary sources, as their own sourcing quality is variable. We trace every claim to its original publication.
The Editorial Review Process
Every piece of content published on this site — regardless of length or content type — goes through the following six-stage process before it reaches readers. No shortcuts are made for time-sensitive news items; a faster-moving process still completes all stages.
Brief & Primary Source Research
A content brief is created identifying the reader question being answered, the primary sources to be used, and any known limitations or caveats. All cited studies and official documents are sourced and saved before writing begins.
First Draft Production
The writer — human or AI-assisted — produces a first draft using only pre-sourced primary materials. Where AI tools assist in drafting, this is flagged internally so the reviewer knows to apply additional scrutiny to factual claims.
Line-by-Line Fact-Check
Each factual claim in the draft is individually verified against its cited source. Statistics, percentages, drug names, dosages, and clinical outcomes are checked for accuracy. Any claim that cannot be verified against a Tier 1 or Tier 2 source is removed or rewritten.
Medical Expert Review
A qualified medical reviewer matched to the article's subject matter — an endocrinologist for clinical mechanism content, a pharmacist for drug interaction content, a dietitian for nutrition content — reads the article, flags any clinical inaccuracies or misleading framing, and approves or requests revision before the article may proceed.
Readability & Tone Review
The article is read for plain-language accessibility. Medical jargon is flagged and simplified. The tone is checked for balance — neither dismissing legitimate concerns nor amplifying unnecessary alarm. Empathy for the patient perspective is assessed.
Disclosure & Publication Check
The editor-in-chief confirms that all required disclosures are present and accurate: affiliate relationships, medical reviewer credits, publication date, and last-reviewed date. The article is approved for publication only after this step is complete.
AI Tools Policy
We use AI tools. We are transparent about how.
We believe using AI responsibly and disclosing that use openly is a higher standard than quietly using it or avoiding it entirely. This section describes our policy precisely.
Artificial intelligence tools, including large language models, are used as part of our content production and review workflow. Their role is assistive, not authoritative — AI tools help us work more efficiently, but they do not make editorial decisions, determine clinical conclusions, or publish content independently.
| Task | AI Involvement | Human Oversight |
|---|---|---|
| Research & source identification | AI may assist with surfacing relevant studies, trial names, and background context | ✓ Required |
| Article drafting | AI may generate initial drafts that are then substantially edited and rewritten by human writers | ✓ Required |
| Structural organization | AI may suggest article structures, headings, and content outlines | ✓ Required |
| Clarity and readability review | AI may flag jargon, complex sentences, or accessibility issues for human editors to address | ✓ Required |
| Clinical conclusions | AI does not determine clinical conclusions — these are established by cited primary research only | Human Only |
| Product ratings & scores | Ratings are set by the editorial team based on a defined rubric — not generated by AI | Human Only |
| Medical review sign-off | AI does not review or approve content for clinical accuracy — this is always a qualified human reviewer | Human Only |
| Final publication decision | AI has no authority to publish content — every publication is approved by a human editor | Human Only |
We actively guard against AI hallucinations.
AI language models can generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect information — a risk we take seriously in a medical context. Our line-by-line fact-check process (Stage 3 of our review process) specifically checks AI-assisted content with heightened scrutiny. Any statistic, drug name, dosage, or clinical outcome generated by AI must be independently verified against a primary source before publication.
We commit to updating this AI policy whenever our practices change materially. The date this page was last reviewed is shown in the sidebar. Readers who want to report suspected AI errors or factual inaccuracies should contact [email protected].
Conflicts of Interest
A conflict of interest exists when a financial, personal, or professional relationship could compromise — or appear to compromise — the objectivity of our editorial content. We take this seriously because our credibility depends on it. Our conflict of interest policy is simple: when a conflict exists, it is either resolved or disclosed.
✓ Permitted Relationships
- Disclosed affiliate commissions from telehealth platforms we have independently reviewed
- Unsolicited press releases or product information from companies — for informational purposes only
- Reader-submitted questions and feedback that may inform content direction
- Academic or professional relationships that do not create financial dependency on any reviewed brand
✗ Prohibited Relationships
- Advertising, sponsorships, or payments from pharmaceutical manufacturers
- Paid content, sponsored articles, or native advertising of any kind
- Commission arrangements that pay different rates based on which platform we recommend
- Free products, trips, meals, or speaking fees from any company we cover editorially
- Equity stakes or financial interests in any GLP-1 telehealth platform we review
Any contributor who becomes aware of a potential conflict of interest related to content they are working on is required to disclose it to the editor-in-chief before the content is finalized. Where the conflict cannot be resolved, the contributor is recused from that specific article and a replacement is assigned.
We have never accepted payment from a pharmaceutical company.
This is an absolute policy with no exceptions, past or present. No Novo Nordisk advertising. No Eli Lilly sponsorships. No payments from compounding pharmacies. Our independence is the entire basis of our value to readers.
Affiliate & Commercial Policy
We participate in affiliate marketing programs with certain telehealth platforms that we have independently reviewed. This means we may earn a commission when a reader clicks one of our affiliate links and completes a sign-up on the linked platform — at no additional cost to the reader.
Affiliate relationships are established after editorial assessments are complete — never before. A platform's willingness to enter into an affiliate agreement has no bearing on whether we review them, what score they receive, or how their content is framed. Platforms that perform poorly in our evaluation are not excluded from our site simply because they are affiliate partners.
All affiliate relationships are disclosed prominently at the top of every review and comparison page that contains an affiliate link. We do not use disguised affiliate links, affiliate redirect URLs without disclosure, or any technique designed to obscure the commercial nature of a link from the reader.
Our affiliate commission structure pays the same rate regardless of which platform a reader selects. This means we have no financial incentive to favor any one platform over another in our rankings — a structural protection for editorial integrity that we deliberately maintain.
Updates & Corrections Policy
The GLP-1 medication space evolves rapidly. FDA decisions, new clinical trial publications, pricing changes, and telehealth platform updates all require us to revise existing content regularly. Every page on this site displays a visible "last reviewed" date so readers always know how current the information is.
Our Corrections Process
When a factual error is identified — whether by a reader, a medical reviewer, or internally — we follow a consistent process:
We do not remove articles or change article content silently. Corrections are always documented inline so that readers who saw the original version understand what changed and why.
Reader Feedback & Accountability
We believe we are accountable to our readers first. Our editorial policy is not a document we maintain for legal protection — it exists to hold us to a standard that we invite our readers to enforce. If you believe we have violated any principle on this page, we want to know.
Reader questions drive a significant portion of our editorial calendar. When a reader asks something we cannot answer in a reply email, it often becomes the next article. Recurring questions reveal gaps in our coverage and help us prioritize the content that actually matters to the people who read us.
This Editorial Policy was last reviewed on March 3, 2026. It is reviewed in full at least once per year, and updated whenever a material change in our practices occurs. Readers who notice a discrepancy between this policy and actual content on the site are encouraged to report it — that discrepancy itself represents something we need to fix.