Corrections

Telling us something is wrong

Email corrections@glpwatchdog.org. Three things make a report checkable straight away:

The page, and the sentence or number on it
What it should say instead
Where that can be seen — a URL, a registration record, a letter. If a price only appears past an intake form, say which answers get there.

You do not have to say who you are. An anonymous report with a working link beats a signed one without.

Three kinds of edit, handled differently

The distinction matters because calling everything a correction makes the word useless, and calling nothing a correction is how sites quietly rewrite their history.

A correction — the page said something untrue. A wrong price, a study cited for a finding it does not contain, an enforcement action attributed to the wrong company, a state listed that is not served. The page gets a dated correction notice saying what it used to say, dateModified updates, and the record goes back through verification rather than being spot-fixed.
An update — the page was true and the world moved. A seller raised its price, a trial reported, an agency acted. The body changes and the reviewed date moves. This is not a correction and is not labeled as one.
A copy edit — a typo, a broken link, a clumsy sentence. Nothing dated, nothing announced.

What a correction notice looks like

It names the old claim. A notice that only states the new figure tells the reader nothing about whether they were misled, which is the entire point of publishing one. Format:

Correction (2026-04-15): this article previously gave mean weight loss in SURMOUNT-1 as 22.5% over 72 weeks. The figure in the published trial is 20.9%, in the 15 mg tirzepatide arm (NEJM, PMID 35658024). Corrected.

The wrong version stays described in the notice. We do not delete the sentence and move on.

Corrections log

Newest first. Each entry names what the page said before and what it says now.

September 2026, our FDA warning-letter analysis. The article counted 186 letters, 109 of them in 2025, and 87 about unlawful sale. 38 letters had been imported twice under two addresses. The corrected counts are 148 letters, 71 in 2025 and 54 about unlawful sale. (A September 2025 letter to Hers that we first treated as a duplicate was its own letter and is restored. A duplicate MyStart Health entry, missed in the first pass, was merged on September 30.) The finding stands: the letters are about selling and claims, and eight concern adulterated products. The duplicate letter pages now redirect to one page each.
September 2026, Open Water Rx review. The review said Open Water Rx publishes no list of the states it serves. It publishes 28, and names its partner pharmacies. Both are now on the review, along with its current prices.
September 2026, Aspire Health review. Aspire wrote to us with nine points. We upheld the ones its own site supports: the review now carries its 29-state list, shows that it publishes prices before the intake, and names its three pharmacies. It had also led with a 10-week starter vial priced as a monthly rate; the headline price is now the standing monthly one.
September 2026, KERNX Health review. The review said KERNX does not publish its pricing, and still described a program KERNX has discontinued. Its pricing is public. The review now quotes it and describes the current program. The first error was ours, not the seller's.

What has to be true before something publishes

Clinical claims come from the FDA label or a PubMed-indexed paper cited by PMID, and the PMID is checked to be the paper we say it is. A real identifier attached to the wrong study is a harder error to catch than a fabricated one, so identifiers get verified rather than copied. No press releases, no vendor blogs, no other comparison sites.
Enforcement claims link the actual letter on fda.gov, matched to a company by domain and address. Never by name resemblance: two firms with similar names are not the same firm, and publishing that mistake would be defamatory.
Prices come off the seller’s own checkout on a recorded date, and are published with that date. Where the billing cycle is not a calendar month, or the figure is promotional, or it requires a prepaid term, the entry says so.
Litigation carries the case number.

Where we cannot verify something, the page says it is unverified rather than omitting the doubt. The full workflow is at /editorial-policy.

Prices go stale, which is a correction problem

A price is a fact about the day it was read. Sellers change them without announcement, so every review carries the date its figures were last checked, and a stale date is visible to you rather than hidden. When a re-check finds the price moved, that is an update. When it finds the price was never right, that is a correction.

Things we will not do

Delete a wrong claim without saying it was there
Date a correction to make the error look shorter-lived
Leave an error standing because fixing it embarrasses a company that pays us, or because fixing it embarrasses us
Ignore a report because it arrived anonymously
Treat a company’s objection as a correction when no fact is in dispute

If we got something wrong about your company

Send the page and the evidence to corrections@glpwatchdog.org and it gets checked on the same terms as anyone else’s report. Accurate findings do not come down, and no commercial relationship changes that in either direction — see the code of conduct. But if we printed something untrue about you, correcting it is not a favor we are doing you. It is the job.