What we've updated

What we published

/review/rugiet said: "Real first-month cost: $188–208, settling to the ongoing rate after that", which is the intake fee plus one month at $139. The same page listed "Ongoing plan $139/mo" without saying which plan that rate belongs to.

What was actually true

Rugiet's help center states that TRT and enclomiphene plans are billed every 3 months, 6 months or yearly, with no month-to-month plan: 3 months $537 ($179/month), 6 months $954 ($159/month), 12 months $1,668 ($139/month), plus a $49 initial lab and doctor consultation. So $139 is the 12-month rate paid yearly, and the smallest first payment is the intake plus $537.

Why it happened

Rugiet prints $139 only as "Plans start at just $139/month" on its TRT page; the plan lengths are in its help center, which we had not read. Our page template assumes a monthly plan whenever a clinic has a one-time intake fee.

How we found out

A live read of Rugiet's help center on 14 October 2026, while recording commitment and cancellation terms for our price transparency index.

What we changed

The review now shows Rugiet's three plans with what each charges and how often, says there is no month-to-month plan, and gives the first payment as the intake plus the shortest plan ($586 to $606, our sum). The cost table names the plan the $139 rate belongs to. Rugiet's score and rank are unchanged: $139 a month was already its lowest published monthly rate.

Does this clinic pay us?

Not a partner.

What we published

Our comparison pages for Peter MD against Male Excel, Defy Medical, Hone Health, NRG Clinic and Keeps TRT said the Better Business Bureau lists Peter MD with an F rating and unresolved complaints about delayed refunds and shipping. The Male Excel vs Peter MD page also said Peter MD offers a cream option and called its $99 "genuinely all-inclusive". The sentences were written on 27 August 2026 and became wrong on 30 August, when we retracted the F rating on the review.

What was actually true

We retracted the F rating on our Peter MD review on 30 August 2026: the profile it came from (Peter MD, Vero Beach FL) could not be found again, and BBB searches for Peter MD's domains returned no match. Since 12 October 2026 we count the PeterMD profile in Tulsa, Oklahoma as Peter MD's own, because it links getpetermd.com: it is rated A+ and accredited since August 2026, with 22 complaints in three years. Peter MD's own pages list injections, oral enclomiphene and HCG, and no testosterone cream (read 6 October 2026). Its $99 covers medication, consults and shipping; blood work is billed on top ($340 the first year, $115 a year after).

Why it happened

The retraction was made on the review page only. The same sentence had been copied into the comparison texts, which no check compared against the review.

How we found out

While merging our Male Excel vs Peter MD article into its comparison page on 14 October 2026, we checked every Peter MD statement on the surviving page against the clinic record.

What we changed

All five comparison texts now state the current BBB record and Peter MD's Trustpilot situation with read dates. The Male Excel vs Peter MD text now lists Peter MD's actual treatments and its separate blood-work charge. No score or rank changed: the review had been scored on the corrected facts since 30 August.

Does this clinic pay us?

Partner, with an active affiliate link. The false F rating made a partner look worse than its record; the correction makes it look better.

What we published

Our Peter MD vs Hone Health, Peter MD vs NRG Clinic and Peter MD vs Keeps TRT pages called Peter MD's $99 a month an all-inclusive or verified total. The Hone page also said Hone's $155 is a membership fee before medication is added and that Hone never itemizes medication.

What was actually true

Peter MD's $99 covers medication, consults and shipping; blood work is billed separately, $340 the first year and $115 a year after (read 11 September 2026). Hone's own page describes Premium at $155 a month as covering "regular lab testing, physician consults, and full access to our medications", plus a one-time $65 advanced lab test (read 24 September 2026).

Why it happened

The same comparison sentences were written before the blood-work line and Hone's Premium wording were recorded, and were not re-checked when those records changed.

How we found out

Found on 14 October 2026 while merging the Peter MD and Male Excel overlap pages, which re-read the comparison texts against the clinic records.

What we changed

The three pages now give Peter MD's $99 with what it covers and the separate blood-work cost, and quote Hone's own Premium description instead of saying medication is never itemized.

Does this clinic pay us?

Partner, with an active affiliate link. The false F rating made a partner look worse than its record; the correction makes it look better.

What we published

Our HeydayMD review said HeydayMD does not publish who its clinicians are and that payment is by bank transfer only, with no card chargeback route. We scored clinical oversight 7.5 and experience 6.0 on that basis.

What was actually true

When we re-read the site on 7 October 2026, HeydayMD listed 32 network clinicians by name with their NPIs, and its Medical Director, and every NPI matched the federal NPI Registry. Its checkouts offered card payment alongside bank transfer. Cards are charged by HeydayMD staff within one business day, not by an automated processor.

Why it happened

HeydayMD changed its site after we raised these points; our review described the site as it was when we last read it.

How we found out

HeydayMD emailed us that the changes were live. We treated the emails as leads and re-read the pages: the clinician list on /our-providers checked against the NPI Registry, and the three checkouts opened in a real browser without submitting a payment.

What we changed

Clinical oversight 7.5 -> 8.0 and experience 6.0 -> 6.5. Transparency is held at 7.0: the comparison tables and the /community lab-monitoring claim are fixed, but two new findings offset them (the footer on every page still says bank transfer only, and card details including the security code are collected for manual charging). Overall 7.0 -> 7.2, rank #18 -> #16 of 34. The review text, its FAQ and our HeydayMD article were updated.

Does this clinic pay us?

Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner up (#18 to #16).

What we published

On /review/royal-medical-center, on all 31 /compare pages pairing Royal with another clinic, on the homepage ranking table and in /price-transparency, we published that Royal Medical Center does not publish a price. The review page carried this as a statement of fact about their site: "We could not verify a price at source. royalmedicalcenters.com returns HTTP 403 to automated checks (tried 2026-09-18 via two different clients), so no figure on this page comes from their own pricing page." We described the $195 figure that appears in public listings as one of "two conflicting structures" we would not publish. Our one-line summary called them a clinic "whose pricing we could not read at source — the site blocks automated verification". Because the record said not-published, our scoring rule forced Price & Value to 6.0, the floor reserved for clinics that withhold pricing, and the automatic price-opacity deduction took a further 2.0 off Transparency. Two further criteria, Clinical Oversight and Treatment Options, were flagged unobservable and floored at 5.0 on the stated grounds that no oversight cadence and no itemised modalities were published. Royal ranked 29th of 32.

What was actually true

Royal's TRT page publishes its rate openly, under a heading called "Program Pricing": "Our Men's Testosterone Replacement Therapy program is priced at $195 per month", itemising all prescribed medications, all necessary supplies, comprehensive lab work, physician consultations and ongoing monitoring, and free shipping, followed by "No hidden fees. No surprises." The same page itemises the modalities we said were not itemised ("The 3 Main Medications": testosterone injections; enclomiphene, clomiphene or gonadorelin; an estrogen blocker) and names four programme variants. It also publishes the oversight cadence we said was absent: "90 days after beginning ... you will be required to follow up with additional labs ... If we are not satisfied with your current levels, the regimen will be modified." None of this was new. It was there while we published the opposite.

Why it happened

Our automated checks got a 403 from Royal's site, and we recorded that as the clinic publishing no price. A real browser read the page on the first attempt.

How we found out

A full factual audit on 2026-09-19 that read every provider's cited source in an ordinary browser rather than with an automated request. Royal's page loaded normally, with its full text, on the first attempt.

What we changed

Starting price recorded as $195 per month, all-inclusive, verified at source on 2026-09-19. Labs corrected from unreadable to included, with the quote. Treatments corrected from injections alone to injections, clomiphene, enclomiphene and ancillaries. The one-line summary and all three pros, each of which described a clinic we could not read, are replaced with what the page says. Scores recalibrated against the existing scale rather than simply raised: Price & Value 6.0 to 7.0 (placed between Ulo at $159 and Fountain at an effective $216, and deliberately not above Fountain, which offers three delivery routes and prepay tiers Royal does not); Clinical Oversight 5.0 to 6.5 (a published monitoring cadence, but no named clinicians); Treatment Options 5.0 to 6.5 (one delivery route plus SERMs and ancillaries, matching Vita Bella's near-identical set); Transparency 5.0 to 6.5, with the automatic 2.0 opacity deduction now falling away because a complete all-in price is published. Overall 5.0 to 6.5; rank 29th to 21st of 32.

Named rather than left implied: marking a criterion as "could not be observed" is the one place in our scoring where an unsupported claim can still move a score, and on Royal it was applied twice on a page nobody had read. Our weekly review of those markers asks whether we were blocked or whether the clinic is silent. It has no way to ask the question that mattered here. Whether the block was theirs or ours.

Does this clinic pay us?

Not a partner. This correction moved it up (#29 to #21).

A defect of our own, found on the way

The block was on our side, not theirs, and the note's own wording concealed it. "Tried via two different clients" sounds like two independent checks; both were the same kind of automated request, which that domain refuses. Two tools blocked by the same rule are one check run twice. The test that settles it is simple and was never run: the domain refuses an automated request for its real page, and refuses one for a page that does not exist in exactly the same way. A response that cannot tell an existing page from a missing one carries no information about the page's contents, so it could never have supported a conclusion about what the page says. We turned the absence of a reading into the presence of a finding. And then let our own scoring rule convert that finding into a five-criterion penalty against a named business.

What we published

We recorded Male Excel as restricted in seven states (AR, CT, HI, ID, LA, NH, RI) and published that everywhere it mattered: as "Availability 44 of 51 states" on /review/male-excel, in that page's quick-facts table, cons list, FAQ answer and sticky CTA; across all 31 /compare pages pairing Male Excel with another clinic; and as a hand-written, enumerated seven-state list in 28 separate places across 12 files. 22 in our articles and 6 in the hand-written text of our comparison pages. The count was published three mutually inconsistent ways at once: "43 states" in our best online TRT clinics guide, "44 states" in four other articles, and "44 of 51" on the generated surfaces. The consequence that matters: /states/alabama, /states/alaska, /states/minnesota and /states/mississippi each printed "Among clinics that actually serve <AB>, our top overall pick is Male Excel (8.1/10)" under the heading "Best online TRT clinic for <AB>", with an affiliate link, on four states where the clinic says it cannot prescribe.

What was actually true

maleexcel.com/faq/ states, and has stated throughout: "Our medical providers prescribe hormone treatment in all states except Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island." That is eleven states, not seven. We were missing Alabama, Alaska, Minnesota and Mississippi. True coverage is 40 of 51 US jurisdictions, not 44.

Why it happened

The state list had no source URL and no check date, so nothing ever re-read it. It appears never to have matched the clinic's own published list.

How we found out

A full factual audit on 2026-09-19 that read every provider's source at first hand. The state list was not caught earlier because nothing could catch it: the state list was the only public claim in our clinic records with no source URL and no checked date, so no routine could re-read it and no check could flag its age. Prices and labs each carry a source and a date; availability had nothing. This was not a drift. The seven-state list appears never to have matched the clinic's own published list.

What we changed

The excluded states corrected to the eleven Male Excel names. Each clinic's state list now records where it was read and when, so the same gap cannot reopen silently, and we now report every clinic whose list still lacks them. All 28 hand-written copies corrected to the full eleven-state list, and the three conflicting counts replaced with the single true figure, 40 of 51. The four state pages no longer name Male Excel as a clinic that serves them.

Not changed, and named here rather than quietly left: the other five providers carrying a state list (Hone Health (18), Rugiet (15), MangoRx (12), Fountain TRT (26) and Peter MD (2)) still have no source or date except Fountain, whose list was verified on 2026-09-18. A third-party source gives Hone a materially different exclusion set from ours, sharing only six entries; Hone's help centre is behind a bot challenge and we could not settle it either way today. That is logged as open, not resolved.

Does this clinic pay us?

Partner, with an active affiliate link. The correction removed it from four state pages where it had been our top pick, with an affiliate link, in states it does not serve.

What we published

Every "Verified {date}" badge on this site fired identically regardless of a provider's actual verification status. A not-published price (e.g. Defy Medical, our #1 pick at the time) showed "Editor's Pick · Verified {date}" with no price behind it to verify at all. The claim "prices re-verified monthly" appeared sitewide in the footer, /about, /editorial-policy and across 189 generated /compare pages.

What was actually true

Each clinic's price-verification status had been in our data since we first recorded prices, but none of the code that displays prices read it. 11 of 20 providers were misrepresented on their own review page. The actual system re-verifies weekly through an automated job, not monthly. Separately, /cheapest's FAQ schema (indexed, machine-readable) and its visible prose both hardcoded "$79" as the cheapest price; the real cheapest was DudeMeds at $77. Corrected in a price audit days earlier but never propagated to that page's static copy.

Why it happened

Each clinic's verification status existed in our data, but no display code read it, and the "monthly" wording described a schedule that was in fact weekly.

How we found out

Found during a direct audit of the code that displays prices, not flagged externally. Fixed by routing all 24 places that display a price through one shared piece of code, with an automatic check that stops any new display from bypassing it.

What we changed

One shared piece of code now drives all 24 price displays, enforced by an automatic check, so each badge reflects that clinic's real verification status. "Monthly" replaced with the weekly schedule.

Does this clinic pay us?

Defy Medical, the clinic named, was not a partner. The badge problem affected 11 of 20 clinics, partners and non-partners.

What we published

Between 26 and 28 August 2026 we ranked Viking Alternative Medicine #16 (down from #2), scoring it 6.0 on pricing and 7.0 on transparency, on the stated basis that it "publishes no pricing at all."

What was actually true

That was our error, not theirs. Viking has a pricing page we simply failed to open before writing the evidence entry. It states that most patients pay around $130 a month and explains why it will not quote a single flat rate without seeing a patient's history, labs and goals. Once read, the correct score was pricing 8.0 / transparency 8.5. Viking back to #3, ahead of where it started.

Why it happened

We wrote the evidence without opening Viking's pricing page.

How we found out

A follow-up review of providers scored 6.0-on-pricing-by-default (the consult-only rule) checked each one's actual site again rather than trusting the earlier evidence note. Viking's page opened without issue on the second look.

What we changed

Price & Value 6.0 to 8.0 and transparency 7.0 to 8.5; Viking back to #3.

Does this clinic pay us?

Not a partner.

What we published

Defy Medical sat at 8.5/10 on Transparency & Trust, tied for the highest score on the site, and at #1 overall, while publishing no price whatsoever (consult-only, price set after consultation). Over the same period the four affiliate partners that do publish a price scored 5.0-7.0 on the same axis. Hone Health also held 8.5 on the identical fact pattern that Male Excel had been docked to 7.0 for on 2026-08-28: both bill medication separately and never itemise it.

What was actually true

Our own reasoning, written into our scoring evidence on 2026-08-28, already said an unpublished medication cost is a transparency fact and not only a pricing one. That reasoning was applied by hand to exactly one provider out of twenty and never generalised, so price opacity kept passing free on the transparency axis for everyone else. Two of the evidence notes had even flagged the contradiction in writing at the time ("we know HOW it is billed, not HOW MUCH... we did NOT change the score", translated from our working notes) and left the score standing.

Why it happened

A rule we had written in prose was applied by hand to one clinic and never generalised to the rest.

How we found out

Found during an audit of whether the rubric's declared weights measure what they claim to, prompted by the question of why three unmonetized providers ranked 1-2-3. Fixed by moving the rule out of prose and into our scoring code, applied mechanically to all 20 providers: -2.0 where no price is published, -1.0 where a figure is published but medication is billed separately and never itemised. Defy Medical fell 8.2 to 7.9 (#1 to #6) and Hone Health, a paying affiliate partner, fell 7.8 to 7.6 (#7 to #10). Male Excel's existing manual deduction was restored to its pre-deduction value so the rule would not penalise it twice.

What we changed

The rule moved into our scoring code and applies to all 20 clinics: minus 2.0 on transparency where no price is published, minus 1.0 where medication is billed separately and never itemised. Defy Medical 8.2 to 7.9 (#1 to #6); Hone Health 7.8 to 7.6 (#7 to #10); Male Excel's earlier manual deduction removed so it is not penalised twice.

Does this clinic pay us?

Hone Health and Male Excel were partners with active links; Defy Medical and NRG Clinic were not. Hone Health, a partner, moved down.

Raised by: Fountain TRT (David, for the clinic), 2026-09-18. They told us fountaintrt.com was the wrong domain and asked us to read fountain.net; they also stated that Fountain is not an affiliate partner of this site and that the review is purely editorial. Two further points they raised did not survive checking. See 'What we could not confirm'.

What we published

Across /review/fountain-trt, all 19 /compare pages pairing Fountain with another clinic (both URL orders, 38 URLs), the homepage ranking table, /cheapest, /best, /answers, /llms.txt, the /tools cost calculators and the /quiz routing data, we published that Fountain TRT was a cream-only, needle-free clinic on a single flat $199/mo rate, available in "All 50 states + DC", operated by Fountain Wellness, LLC, with no HIPAA notice published and with labs not stated. We scored Treatment Options 6.5/10 on the stated basis that it offered "a single modality", gave it the label "Best Cream-Only Protocol", and ranked it 13th of 20. Before 2026-08-28 the same pages said the opposite and were equally wrong: injections-only, 7.4/10 overall, #17.

What was actually true

Fountain offers three delivery routes, not one: fountain.net/trt lists "Injections, topical cream, or enclomiphene" and names the products as "Testosterone Cypionate Injections", "Topical Testosterone Cream" and "Enclomiphene", plus "If appropriate, optional add-ons: Anastrazole and Tadalafil". It publishes three prices, billed per 4-week cycle rather than per month: $199 per 4 weeks with no commitment, $167 per 4 weeks as $499 billed every 12 weeks, and $150 per 4 weeks as $1,799 billed every 48 weeks. It operates in a published list of 25 states on fountain.net/trt-faqs, not nationwide. Its legal entity is Fountain Vitality, Inc. of Jacksonville, FL, contracting with four named independent practices (Duval Medical, P.A.; Quaker Ridge Medical, PLLC; Avalon Medical, PC; Redwood Medical, PC). It publishes a Notice of Privacy Practices naming HIPAA, which we had recorded as absent. Its membership explicitly includes "Comprehensive labs". It makes no HSA or FSA claim anywhere; it says "No insurance involved". Every one of those facts was on a page we had never opened.

The two domains are one company, not a lookalike: fountain.net's own Terms of Use names "fountain.net; fountaintrt.com; fountainglp.com" as its three websites, both domains send signup to the same join.fountaintrt.com, both list the same Jacksonville address, and fountaintrt.com's footer gives support@fountain.net. But fountain.net is the maintained one. It carries rel=canonical on every page, a robots.txt and a sitemap, the current entity and terms, both programs, and its own navigation points "FountainTRT" at fountain.net/trt. fountaintrt.com is a retained legacy page served from a static bucket (robots.txt and sitemap.xml both return NoSuchKey), with no canonical tag, an empty og:url, a narrower 20-state list, one price, and terms naming the earlier entity. It is not abandoned, so nothing ever 404'd or redirected to warn us. We had been reading a page the company still hosts but no longer updates.

The clinic was right on every point it raised. We checked each one at source rather than taking the letter's word for it, and also re-derived what it did not raise.

Why it happened

We read a legacy domain the company still hosts but no longer updates, and nothing in our checks asks whether a clinic's URL is still its current one.

How we found out

Fountain wrote to us. We treated the letter as a set of claims to verify, not as instructions, and read fountain.net in full: both domains and their /trt, /trt-faqs, /terms and /notice-of-privacy-practices pages, following every redirect; robots, sitemap, canonical tags, DNS and hosting for both; then a full browser render with scrolling, because a price read from the raw page alone can miss a banner that only appears once the page has loaded (a step we added after the Keeps TRT banner, 2026-09-15). The render matched the raw page exactly. Fountain's site is rendered on the server, so there was no hidden layer here. We then re-derived the claims the letter did not make, which is where the entity, HIPAA, labs and billing-unit errors came from.

The root cause is not carelessness on one field, it is that nothing in our process ever checked whether a provider's URL is still the provider's current URL. Our weekly price check was pointed at fountaintrt.com, and it had been returning success every week. It was reading a real, live page with a real $199 on it. A stale-domain failure passes every check we run, because each one asks whether the number matches the page, never whether the page is still the right page. Both of our previous Fountain corrections, on 2026-08-28 and this one, were re-readings of the same wrong site.

What we changed

Treatments corrected to injections + cream + enclomiphene, with the optional anastrozole and tadalafil recorded. Treatment Options re-scored 6.5 to 8.0, calibrated against Rugiet 7.5 for the identical three-route set plus Fountain's published ancillaries, and held below the 8.5 four-modality band. Fountain moves 7.5 to 7.8 overall, #13 to #7. The score was allowed to land where the corrected evidence put it; it was not aimed. The three price tiers and the 4-week billing unit are recorded, and the 12-month cost corrected from $2,388 (12 x $199) to $2,595 (13.04 x $199). A $207 understatement of a full year. Availability replaced with the published 25-state list. Legal entity corrected to Fountain Vitality, Inc.; the BBB "not found" result is withdrawn as invalid rather than kept, because it searched a name that was never the current entity. The HIPAA gap is withdrawn. The notice exists. Labs corrected from not-stated to included. The "Best Cream-Only Protocol" label, the needle-free one-liner and all three pros are gone, because each was false. Our recorded pricing source and our weekly price check now point at fountain.net/trt.

Two fixes reach beyond Fountain, because the letter exposed defects that were never Fountain-specific. First, the review page rendered "All 50 states + DC" whenever a clinic's state list was empty. Turning missing data into an affirmative nationwide availability claim, on 15 of 20 providers, in the visible quick-facts table and in the machine-readable FAQPage schema. The rule against this was already written down for our quiz, and the quiz obeyed it while the review page did not. Absence now reads as absence. Second, every review page carried a hardcoded "Typically cash-pay (HSA/FSA often eligible)" row and a matching FAQ answer, asserted identically for all 20 clinics and verified for none of them individually. Fountain asked us to drop or re-verify it; we could not verify it for them, which meant we could not verify it for anyone. The cash-pay half is kept because it is true and checked; the tax-eligibility half now says plainly that we have no statement from the clinic either way. The sourced argument for HSA/FSA still lives in /blog/trt-cost-per-month, where it is attributed to IRS Publication 502.

Not changed, and named here rather than quietly left: the Trustpilot record is still keyed to trustpilot.com/review/fountaintrt.com (4.4/314, read 2026-08-30), while fountain.net claims a 4.9 TrustScore. Trustpilot returned 403 to every route we tried today, so we neither re-verified ours nor adopted theirs. The clinical 8.0 rests on a named physician quote taken from the legacy domain and not yet reconfirmed on fountain.net, and experience 8.5 still lacks the independent signal its own evidence note has flagged as missing since 2026-08-28. Those are logged as open, not resolved.

Does this clinic pay us?

Not a partner. This correction moved it up (#13 to #7).

Where the error came from

Traced to the day this site launched. On 2026-06-04, the very first version of TRT Picks already listed Fountain, with its pricing source set to "https://fountaintrt.com/". It was never chosen after a comparison, never re-derived, and never questioned; every later pass inherited it. It is the only URL in that first entry. The other four criteria cite "pagina program", "review-uri publice" and "site" (our working notes for "program page", "public reviews" and "site"), which are placeholder strings, not sources. All five scores were assigned that same day on that basis.

DID WE SCORE A DIFFERENT COMPANY? No, and we checked rather than assumed. fountaintrt.com is Fountain: fountain.net's current Terms of Use name "fountain.net; fountaintrt.com; fountainglp.com" as the three Websites of Fountain Vitality, Inc.; both sites carry the same Jacksonville address; both send signup to the same join.fountaintrt.com; and fountaintrt.com's own footer gives support@fountain.net. We were reading a real page of the right company. An old one it still hosts but no longer maintains. No other business was ever described under Fountain's name.

The seed is worse than a wrong domain, though, and that is the finding that matters. It recorded the treatments as injectable only, with the summary "Focus exclusiv pe TRT injectabil" (exclusive focus on injectable TRT) and the evidence note "Doar injectabil" (injectable only). fountaintrt.com has never sold injectables; it is the cream-only, "No needles" page. So the original description matched neither Fountain domain. It was not a misreading of the wrong site; on that field there was no site behind it at all. The $199 did match fountaintrt.com. The pricing note "Cel mai scump din lot" (most expensive of the batch) was false on our own data even then, Marek Health was $225, and stood for 85 days.

So the sequence on treatments is: unsourced "injectable-only" (2026-06-04), corrected to "cream-only" off the legacy domain (2026-08-28), corrected to the real three-route range off the canonical domain (2026-09-18). Three published descriptions, two of them wrong, one of them never sourced.

A defect of our own, found on the way

We were told our compare pages showed 7.4 / #17 / injections-only while the review showed 7.5 / #13 / cream-only, and that hand-written text on our comparison pages contradicted the data. We checked all of it.

That hand-written text contains no Fountain entry at all. It covers exactly 21 pairs, all among seven other providers, which is every pair of those seven. It cannot contradict Fountain's data because it never mentions Fountain. Nothing there needed fixing.

The 7.4 / #17 / injections-only figures are real and they are ours, but they were never simultaneous with 7.5 / #13. They are what this site published between 2026-08-03 and 2026-08-28: the weighted arithmetic of 6.0/8.0/7.5/8.5/7.5 on our 25/25/20/15/15 rubric is 7.40 to the digit, and rank #17 pins it to our records for that period. Compare pages and the review page both compute from the same live ranking, so a live split between them is not structurally possible. What was reaching readers was our old numbers, still held in Google's index for URLs that now redirect to reordered slugs. Fountain's rank did move through #11, #12, #13, #16 and #17 over that period, which is where a count of several different figures comes from. But that was the provider set growing around a fixed 7.4, not pages disagreeing with each other.

A REAL cross-page split did exist when we looked, and we had introduced it hours earlier. Giving Fountain a 4-week billing unit fixed the body text but not the page titles: 28 /compare titles still read "$199/mo" while the same pages' bodies read "$199/4 wks". The cause is the same shape as the "verified-monthly-claim" correction. One shared piece of code formats price text, and an automatic check stops a price's verification status and date being written any other way, but nothing guarded the price figure itself. Twenty-two places across eight files were building their own price string with "/mo" written in by hand. It was invisible while all twenty providers billed monthly and the fixed suffix happened to be right. All twenty-two now use the shared formatting, and an automatic check now stops an update going live if a unit is ever again written by hand next to a provider's price. A sweep of 53 Fountain-bearing URLs now returns one score (7.8), one rank (#7) and one price ($199/4 wks), with no $199/mo remaining anywhere.

The older defect stands as reported: the 2026-08-28 correction changed a modality, a score, a rank, a label and 38 URLs and was never entered in this register, living only in internal files. That is why a clinic could write to us quoting numbers we had already withdrawn. Getting the superseded copies out of circulation is only partly ours to do: at the time we asked Google to recrawl /review/fountain-trt, while the 38 /compare URLs were left to refresh on Google's own recrawl. The gap between correcting something and readers stopping seeing the old version is real and measured in weeks.

How it closed out

CONFIRMED BY THE CLINIC, 2026-09-18. Fountain replied with their state list in full. Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. We compared it name by name against what we now publish: 25 against 25, zero in ours that is not in theirs, zero in theirs that is not in ours. EXACT MATCH. Our record stands as corrected.

WHO WAS RIGHT ABOUT WHAT, stated plainly because the register is worth nothing if it only records our wins. They were right about the states from their first letter, and right that we should be reading fountain.net. We had been reviewing them off fountaintrt.com since the day this site launched, and every error in this entry flows from that. We were right on one narrow point only: their claim that fountaintrt.com 'is not them' is contradicted by their own Terms of Use, which name fountain.net, fountaintrt.com and fountainglp.com as the three Websites of Fountain Vitality, Inc. We read the correct domain now, which is the outcome they asked for; we simply do not record the two as unrelated companies.

SWEEP FOR RESIDUE, and it found one. Checking whether 'All 50 states + DC' still rendered anywhere for Fountain: it does not. /review, /compare, /cheapest and the meta descriptions all show '25 of 51 states'. But the sweep caught the underlying defect still live for OTHER providers. /cheapest had its own DUPLICATE copy of the availability logic that the original correction fixed on the review pages. One copy was repaired and the other was not, so the review page said 'Not published' while /cheapest went on asserting 'All 50 states + DC' for the same clinics. DudeMeds, TRT Nation, Blokes, Hims, Maximus, Ageless, 1st Optimal and more, eight visible on one screen. Fixed in the same pass. The lesson is not about Fountain: a correction applied to one call site is not applied until every copy of that logic is found, and nothing in our checks looks for a second copy.

What we checked and could not confirm

Two claims put to us did not hold up, and we are recording that rather than quietly dropping them.

STATE COVERAGE. We were told fountain.net lists 50 states plus DC. It does not. fountain.net/trt-faqs says "Fountain is currently operating in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. We will be expanding to other states in the near future." That is 25 states. We fetched all twelve pages on fountain.net with caching defeated, then rendered /trt-faqs and /terms in a full browser with every accordion expanded: the strings "50 states", "District of Columbia" and "DC" do not appear anywhere on the site, and the terms say the Platform "may not be available in your state". The 25-state list stands and is what we publish. Worth noting where "all 50 states + DC" probably came from: it is the exact string OUR OWN page was rendering for Fountain until this correction, generated from empty state data rather than from any Fountain source.

DOMAIN OWNERSHIP. We were told fountaintrt.com "is not them". Fountain's own Terms of Use on fountain.net say otherwise, naming fountaintrt.com as one of its three Websites. We have corrected our data to read fountain.net exclusively, which is the outcome asked for, but we are not recording that the two are unrelated companies, because the clinic's own legal page says they are the same one.

AFFILIATE STATUS. Confirmed and unchanged: there is no affiliate relationship. Fountain has never had an affiliate link or a commission on this site since the day it was added, and no affiliate programme for Fountain appears anywhere in our records. The listing is editorial and always has been. Nothing needed correcting here; we checked because it was asserted.

Still open from the earlier pass: Trustpilot returned 403 on every route, so our stored 4.4/314 (keyed to the legacy domain) is unverified and the clinic's claimed 4.9 is not adopted. The clinical score still rests on a physician quote taken from the legacy domain and not yet reconfirmed on fountain.net.

What we published

Three separate errors on Rugiet, all corrected in the same re-read.

INTAKE FEE, 2026-08-26 to 2026-09-19. We recorded Rugiet's one-time intake evaluation as $69, and that figure fed the Rugiet review page, /cheapest, /price-transparency and the quiz.

LABS, 2026-09-11 to 2026-09-19. We recorded Rugiet's labs as billed separately, citing the words "Testosterone Labs Required", and /price-transparency showed that.

REVENUE, 2026-07-31 to 2026-09-19. Rugiet's one-line summary, shown on the homepage rankings, the review page, the compare pages and the quiz, described it as "the men's health brand behind $100M+ in revenue".

What was actually true

Rugiet publishes two different intake figures on its own site. The three product pages (/injectable-trt, /topical-trt, /enclomiphene) display "$49 gets you accurate testosterone testing and a video call with a licensed physician" and never mention $69. The $69 exists only inside a collapsed FAQ on the hub page rugiet.com/testosterone. We now record the $49 a reader sees on the page they land on, and name both figures in the price note.

"Testosterone Labs Required" is a badge on a product card: an eligibility condition (you need labs), not a billing fact. The page says the opposite in its text: "Ongoing lab fees included in plan". We read an interface label as a cost structure.

The $100M+ revenue figure had no source anywhere in our data. It is a financial claim about a named private company, and we could not find where it came from.

Why it happened

We took the $69 from a collapsed FAQ instead of the product pages, read a "Labs Required" badge as a billing fact, and carried a revenue figure we had no source for.

How we found out

Found on 2026-09-19 while improving our weekly price check so it reads a page the way a visitor sees it (visible text vs. collapsed sections vs. page source only). Re-reading Rugiet in a full browser on all four of its TRT pages showed the $49/$69 split and the lab-fee sentence. The revenue claim was found in the same pass because the one-line summary was being rewritten to say the $139/mo is only visible inside the FAQ.

What we changed

One-time intake fee $69 -> $49, with both figures and where each appears stated in the price note. Labs corrected from billed-separately to included, quoting "Ongoing lab fees included in plan". The revenue figure was removed from the one-line summary, not re-sourced, because we had no source to put behind it.

Does this clinic pay us?

Not a partner.

A defect of our own, found on the way

Found on 2026-09-24, while moving this correction out of our internal notes and into this register: three places the 2026-09-19 fix never reached.

1. The /review/rugiet page title and meta description, which are written by hand, still read "$139/mo Plus Labs" and "labs billed separately from $69". The two errors above, shown in search results for five more days. The automatic check on that copy passed, because it verified the dollar figures and $69 still appears in our data, inside the price note that explains why we stopped using it. It never checked what the copy said about labs.

2. Rugiet's experience score of 8.5 was still justified by the same unsourced "$100M+" revenue note that had been removed from the one-line summary. The claim left the page; the score it supported did not move.

3. The pricing note in our scoring evidence still said the initial evaluation was $69.

How it closed out

CLOSED 2026-09-24, same day as found.

Title and description rewritten: "Rugiet TRT Cost: $139/mo With Labs, $49 to Start" / "Rugiet TRT is $139/mo with ongoing labs included, after a one-time $49 intake." Our automatic check on page titles and descriptions now also compares any claim about labs (included, billed separately, or not stated) with the provider's recorded lab status, and stops an update going live when they disagree. Run against the old copy, it fails.

Experience re-scored 8.5 -> 8.0, on independent records instead of the revenue claim: 4.3/5 on Trustpilot from 1,631 reviews and a BBB A+ rating with no unanswered complaints (both read 2026-08-30). The two clinics closest to Rugiet on that evidence, Maximus (4.4 from 1,056) and Male Excel (4.5 from 6,300), both score 8.0; at 8.5 Rugiet sat above Male Excel on a lower rating from a quarter of the reviews. Rugiet's overall score moves 8.0 -> 7.9 and its rank #4 -> #6. The score was set by that comparison, not aimed at a rank.

ON THE RECORD BECAUSE THE OUTCOME FAVOURS A PARTNER: this re-score moves Hone Health from #5 to #4, and Hone Health is a paid affiliate partner of this site. Defy Medical, which moves from #6 to #5, is not. Nothing about Hone changed: its scores and evidence are untouched, and it moves only because Rugiet moved below it. Rugiet's score changed for one reason. The only justification it had, an unsourced "$100M+ revenue" figure, had already been withdrawn as unsupportable, and a score cannot keep resting on a claim we removed. The new 8.0 rests on independent records (Trustpilot and BBB, above), calibrated against the two clinics with comparable evidence. Commission is not an input to any score on this site (scores are computed only from our recorded evidence), and it was not considered here.

Pricing note corrected to the $49/$69 split, pointing here.

LABEL REMOVED, 2026-09-24: Rugiet's "Best Known Brand" label, shown on its review page, the homepage, the compare pages and llms.txt, rested on the same brand-recognition premise as the removed revenue figure. By the one measure we hold, review volume, Hone Health and Male Excel are better known. Nothing else in our data makes Rugiet uniquely best at anything (its flat rate with labs included is shared with Henry Meds, MangoRx, Ulo and Fountain) so the label was removed, not replaced. A label with no evidence behind it should not exist. Removing it changed no score and no rank. Three other labels were removed the same day for the same reason (DudeMeds "Best Budget All-Inclusive", Ageless "Best All-In-One", NRG Clinic "Best All-Inclusive"): DudeMeds and Ageless are recorded as tiered plans with labs not included or not stated, and NRG Clinic publishes no price at all, so none of the three labels had anything behind it.

What we published

Our rankings sorted clinics on their overall score AFTER rounding it to one decimal. Two clinics a few hundredths apart (for example 7.650 and 7.700) both became 7.7, and the order in which they happened to be listed in our data file decided which one ranked higher. The rounded scores we displayed were correct; the ranks between near-equal clinics were not.

What was actually true

Ranks should follow the unrounded score. Where that is exactly equal, we now break the tie by the higher clinical score, and where that is equal too, we show the clinics as tied. File order no longer decides any rank.

Why it happened

We sorted clinics on their score after rounding it to one decimal, so when two scores rounded to the same figure, the order of our data file decided the rank.

How we found out

While re-scoring a partner on mylongevitypicks on 2026-09-27, a clinic with a lower unrounded score was ranked above one with a higher score; checking both sites found the same pattern throughout.

What we changed

The cause was ranking on a rounded score. Not any change to the clinics, their evidence or their scores; every displayed score is unchanged. Partner moves: Hone Health #4 -> #5 (down), Peter MD #13 -> #14 (down), MangoRx #12 -> #11 (up), Ageless #9 -> #7 (up; its affiliate program has been paused since 2026-09-14, so no partner link is live). Of the four partners that moved, two moved DOWN (Hone Health, Peter MD) and two moved UP (MangoRx; Ageless, paused). Peter MD's move comes from the new tie rule: it has exactly the same unrounded score as Maximus (7.500), and Maximus has the higher clinical score (8.0 vs 7.5). Across both sites five partners moved down and three up. Regenx Health and Renew Vitality are exactly equal on both the unrounded score (4.950) and the clinical score (5.0), so they now share #30. All rank changes: Rugiet #6 -> #4; Hone Health #4 -> #5; Defy Medical #5 -> #6; Ageless #9 -> #7; Fountain TRT #7 -> #8; Ulo #8 -> #9; MangoRx #12 -> #11; Marek Health #11 -> #12; Maximus #14 -> #13; Peter MD #13 -> #14; AlphaMD #18 -> #16; Vita Bella Health #16 -> #17; Blokes #17 -> #18; Royal Medical Center #21 -> #20; Hims #20 -> #21; Renew Vitality #31 -> #30.

Does this clinic pay us?

Hone Health and Peter MD, both partners, moved down. MangoRx, a partner, moved up. Ageless moved up with its programme paused since 2026-09-14. The other twelve clinics were not partners.

What we published

The pricing note on our HeydayMD review said: "HeydayMD told us by email that a $133/mo month-to-month plan also exists; it does not appear anywhere on their site, so we do not list it." We never priced or scored that plan, but the sentence told readers it existed.

What was actually true

HeydayMD has no month-to-month plan. On 2026-10-01 the clinic confirmed this to us in writing and said the earlier $133 figure was a mistake on its side. Its published plans are the annual plan at $1,188 billed upfront and the six-month plan at $699 billed upfront.

Why it happened

We repeated a plan the clinic had described in an email, though it appeared nowhere on its site. The clinic later told us the email was its own mistake.

How we found out

HeydayMD wrote to us on 2026-10-01 to correct its own earlier email.

What we changed

The sentence was removed from the review and from our evidence record. HeydayMD's pricing score was always based on the published annual and six-month plans, so its score and rank are unchanged.

Does this clinic pay us?

Partner, with an active affiliate link. Its score and rank did not change.

What we published

From 2026-09-22 to 2026-10-03 we scored TRT Nation's Price & Value at 8.0/10, for an overall 7.7/10 and rank #10 of 34, and listed its price as $99/mo. That score was set before we knew about the clinic's minimum purchase.

What was actually true

TRT Nation's product page (trtnation.com/testosterone-therapy/) lists the testosterone plan at "$99.99/mo" with the footnote "*2.5 months minimum purchase", so the smallest commitment at signup is about $250, not one month. Under the pricing calibration already written in our evidence for this criterion (AlphaMD and Vita Bella Health both sit at 7.0 because every tier requires a commitment), that minimum puts TRT Nation at 7.5: lower than a clinic with true month-to-month pricing, higher than the two with heavier commitments, because its minimum is shorter and its rate includes medication and unlimited consults.

Why it happened

We read the minimum purchase on 2026-09-22 but held the score back for 11 days so a search-snippet test running on 19 comparison pages would not be disturbed.

How we found out

We read the minimum and the $99.99 figure on 2026-09-22 and disclosed the minimum the same day everywhere the price appears. We deliberately did not change the score or the price then, because both are printed in the titles and descriptions of 19 comparison pages that were inside a two-week measurement window for a search-snippet test ending 2026-10-02. That was a decision about timing, not a dispute about the evidence; this entry exists because the published score was knowingly behind our own evidence for eleven days.

What we changed

Price 99 -> 99.99 (the product-page figure). Price & Value 8.0 -> 7.5. Overall 7.7 -> 7.6. Rank #10 -> #12: at 7.6 TRT Nation now ties MangoRx and Marek Health on the displayed score, and the tie-break puts it last. MangoRx ranks ahead on the unrounded score (7.625 vs 7.600); Marek Health ranks ahead on clinical score (9.0 vs 7.5). MangoRx moves #11 -> #10 and Marek Health #12 -> #11. Two comparison URLs changed order and now redirect permanently: /compare/trt-nation-vs-mangorx -> /compare/mangorx-vs-trt-nation and /compare/trt-nation-vs-marek-health -> /compare/marek-health-vs-trt-nation. On 2026-10-15 both were turned back to the order Google had indexed (trt-nation-vs-mangorx, trt-nation-vs-marek-health); the other order now redirects to them. MangoRx is an affiliate partner and now ranks ahead of TRT Nation, which is not. The cause is the evidence about TRT Nation's minimum purchase, not the partnership: nothing about MangoRx changed, and commissions never move a score.

Does this clinic pay us?

TRT Nation and Marek Health are not partners. MangoRx is a partner and now ranks ahead of TRT Nation; nothing about MangoRx changed.

What we published

HeydayMD's Treatment score was 6.0, with a note saying cream and enclomiphene had "no product, no price", and its Transparency score was 6.0, held down by generated "live activity" pop-ups and a random "people viewing" count on its checkout. Overall 6.5/10, rank #20 of 34.

What was actually true

Treatment: HeydayMD's /shop page prices three testosterone routes (injectable at $99/mo on the plan, compounded cream at $119/mo, enclomiphene at $89/mo), and each of the other two has its own product page. HeydayMD's sitemap dates both product pages 6 July 2026, so they very likely existed when we wrote "no product, no price" on 29 September. That part was our miss. Transparency: on 29 September we wrote that Transparency would rise to 6.5 if the script generating the activity signals was removed. When we re-read the site on 5 October the script no longer contained any activity messages, testimonials or viewer count (HeydayMD's own code comments date the change 1 October).

Why it happened

Treatment: we did not read HeydayMD's /shop product pages on 29 September. Transparency: HeydayMD changed its site after we raised the problem, and the condition we had set in advance was met.

How we found out

HeydayMD wrote to us saying it had fixed everything we raised. We treated the email as a lead and re-read the site itself: all 247 pages in its sitemap, every script those pages load, and the main pages in a real browser.

What we changed

Treatment 6.0 -> 7.0 (three priced routes, the same level as Fridays; held below Rugiet's 7.5 because HeydayMD does not say how cream or enclomiphene is billed against its prepaid plans, and its own comparison tables still say injections only). Transparency 6.0 -> 6.5, the level we set in advance; it goes no higher because the checkout picks the consult price at random for each visitor ($79 or $99) without saying so, and four contradictions on its site remain open. Overall 6.5 -> 6.8; rank #20 -> #19 of 34. The review now lists six items as fixed, keeps five open with today's quotes, and no longer has a section on generated activity signals.

Does this clinic pay us?

Partner (direct programme), with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner UP.

What we published

HeydayMD's Treatment score was 7.0, held below Rugiet because HeydayMD did not say how cream or enclomiphene was billed against its prepaid plans. Its Transparency score was 6.5, held there because its checkout picked the consult price at random for each visitor ($79 or $99). Overall 6.8/10, rank #19 of 34.

What was actually true

When we re-read the site on 6 October 2026 the checkout charged a fixed $99 for the consult on ten fresh loads, and its code says the test ended on 5 October. /shop, both product pages and the checkout now say cream and enclomiphene are on the same plan at the same price as injections, and the checkout lets you pick one. Its comparison tables now describe its plans as prepaid with renewal you can cancel, instead of 'Contracts: None'.

Why it happened

HeydayMD changed its site after we raised the problems. Nothing we published was wrong when we published it.

How we found out

HeydayMD wrote to us saying it had closed all five open items. We treated the email as a lead and re-read the site itself: all 245 pages in its sitemap, and the checkout ten times in fresh browser sessions. Three items were closed. Two were only partly closed (physician wording on about 13 pages, and the lab kit's 'no needle' and correlation claims), so they stay open on the review.

What we changed

Treatment 7.0 -> 7.5 (the same level as Rugiet, which offers the same three routes). Transparency 6.5 -> 7.0; it goes no higher because two of the five items HeydayMD said were closed are still on its site, its Terms do not mention cream or enclomiphene, and one page still implies ongoing lab monitoring is included. Overall 6.8 -> 7.0; rank #19 -> #18 of 34, tied with Blokes. The review now lists the consult price and the contract wording as fixed, keeps four items open with today's quotes, and its warning box no longer mentions either.

Does this clinic pay us?

Partner (direct programme), with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner UP.

What we published

/blog/male-excel-vs-dudemeds and /blog/male-excel-vs-peter-md said "Male Excel (cream only): Male Excel prescribes a single modality"; /blog/male-excel-vs-dudemeds also said "Male Excel's cream is the only modality on offer"; /blog/hone-health-vs-male-excel said "Male Excel offers only daily cream microdosing". The comparison table in /blog/is-peter-md-legit listed Peter MD's delivery as "Injectable, cream", DudeMeds' as "Injectable only" and Male Excel's as "Cream (needle-free)".

What was actually true

Since our 19 September 2026 re-read of Male Excel's pricing page, our record lists injections and clomiphene alongside its cream; cream is its default protocol, not its only one. On the same date our record for Peter MD became injections and oral enclomiphene, with no cream or gel, and DudeMeds' record lists oral enclomiphene alongside injections. The articles were written before those re-reads and were not updated when the record changed.

Why it happened

Our form check compared article prose against the record only inside quoted strings, so plain sentences in articles were never checked, and it had no rule for an exclusivity claim ("only", "single modality") when the record lists more forms.

How we found out

On 6 October 2026, while adding an exclusivity rule to the form check after a scheduled HeydayMD article said injections were "the only form offered", the new rule flagged these lines.

What we changed

The four articles now say Male Excel leads with its cream and also lists injections and clomiphene, and the table gives Peter MD and DudeMeds injectable plus oral enclomiphene and Male Excel cream, injectable and clomiphene. The form check now flags exclusivity claims in articles. No score changed.

Does this clinic pay us?

Male Excel, Peter MD and DudeMeds are partners with active affiliate links. The correction lists more treatment options for Male Excel and DudeMeds, and removes a cream from Peter MD's row; no score or rank moved.

What we published

/blog/enclomiphene-vs-trt-2026 listed MangoRx as offering "Enclomiphene in select plans" and called it "one of the few online clinics that explicitly incorporates enclomiphene"; /blog/trt-side-effects said MangoRx "includes enclomiphene in several of its plans"; /blog/trt-buyer-safety-hub said MangoRx offers "injection and cream delivery". /blog/male-excel-vs-peter-md said "Peter MD prescribes topical testosterone gel", and /blog/peter-md-vs-dudemeds recommended Peter MD to men who "may eventually switch from injectable to gel". The same article said DudeMeds' $77/month "explicitly includes anastrozole, syringes, and lab panels".

What was actually true

On 6 October 2026 we read all 26 pages in MangoRx's sitemap in a real browser: none mentions enclomiphene, clomiphene or a cream; its testosterone options are injectable cypionate and oral Kyzatrex (Prime Protocol), which is what our record already said. Peter MD's TRT pages offer injectable testosterone and oral enclomiphene; the only "gel" on them is a general list of low-testosterone treatments, and its only cream is a sexual-wellness product. DudeMeds' $77 covers the televisit, prescription, medication and shipping, and lab work is separate (our record has said so since 24 September).

Why it happened

The articles were written from older or inferred descriptions and were not updated when our records were corrected (Peter MD on 19 September, DudeMeds on 24 September). Our form check read only quoted strings in articles, so these sentences were never compared with the records.

How we found out

A full-prose run of the form check on 6 October 2026 flagged 27 lines; we read MangoRx's and Peter MD's live sites to decide, for each, whether the record or the article was wrong. The records were right in every case.

What we changed

The five articles now describe MangoRx as injectable plus oral Kyzatrex, Peter MD as injectable plus oral enclomiphene, and DudeMeds' labs as a separate step. Where an article pointed readers to MangoRx for enclomiphene, it now points to Peter MD and DudeMeds, which list it. No record, score or rank changed.

Does this clinic pay us?

MangoRx, Peter MD and DudeMeds are partners with active affiliate links. The correction removes options we had credited to MangoRx and Peter MD, and redirects the enclomiphene recommendation from MangoRx to Peter MD and DudeMeds; no score or rank moved.

What we published

/blog/trt-buyer-safety-hub listed "Ageless Men's Health" as a "Clinic + telehealth hybrid" that "operates physical clinic locations across the US" and linked it to our Try Ageless review. /blog/enclomiphene-vs-trt-2026 said Try Ageless includes enclomiphene "in its Optimize plan ($209/mo)". /blog/is-peter-md-legit said Peter MD does not appear to offer "peptide add-ons" and that men who need HCG "will outgrow Peter MD"; /blog/peter-md-vs-dudemeds and a /compare page listed Peter MD without HCG (the /compare text also still gave it a cream).

What was actually true

Read live on 6 October 2026. Try Ageless's Terms say "The Services are a telehealth platform only"; it is operated by Lovely Meds, Inc. from Newark, Delaware. Ageless Men's Health is a separate brand of walk-in clinics ("65+ Locations Across the Country"). Try Ageless's plans page lists enclomiphene on the base Complete plan ($129/mo, 3-month term); Optimize ($209/mo) adds HCG and Kyzatrex, as our other articles said. Peter MD sells HCG for TRT ("HCG 5000iu $147.00 ... taken with TRT to prevent testicular atrophy and infertility"; 10000iu $301.00) and sermorelin ($585 for three months).

Why it happened

The hub article conflated two companies with similar names. Our Peter MD record listed only injections and oral enclomiphene; we had not read its product catalogue, so the record, and the articles written from it, were incomplete.

How we found out

A follow-up to our 6 October check of how our articles describe each clinic's treatments: we read Ageless Men's Health, Try Ageless and Peter MD's product pages in a real browser.

What we changed

The hub now names Try Ageless, describes it as telehealth only and says it is not Ageless Men's Health. The enclomiphene article places enclomiphene on Try Ageless's Complete plan. Peter MD's record now lists HCG with both prices and the sermorelin price, and the Peter MD articles and /compare text say HCG is offered and sermorelin is sold separately. Try Ageless's three plan tiers are recorded with their source. No score or rank changed; whether Peter MD's treatment score should move with HCG is still under review.

Does this clinic pay us?

Peter MD is a partner with an active link; Try Ageless is a paused partner (programme suspended 14 Sep 2026, no active link). The correction adds treatment options to Peter MD's record and moves a recommendation away from a company we do not review; no score or rank moved.

What we published

The "watch out for" note on /review/regenx-health said: "The site names ten states it serves (TX, FL, NV, OH, AZ, CA, NM, NC, SC, PA) but does not publish a definitive coverage list, so the boundary is unclear."

What was actually true

Read live on 9 October 2026. The state names on regenxhealth.com appear only in image alt text written for search engines (for example "Testosterone online for men in Texas, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Arizona"). That is not a statement of where REGENX treats patients. Its FAQ declines to give one: "For a full list of states where REGENX Health providers are available, please call at 1.888.6.REGENX for the most recent information."

Why it happened

On 18 September we read image captions as a list of served states.

How we found out

A live read of every clinic's own pages on 9 October 2026, done to record state availability for the 24 clinics that had none.

What we changed

The note now says REGENX publishes no list of states and quotes its FAQ. REGENX stays under "Not yet verified" on every state page. No score or rank changed.

Does this clinic pay us?

REGENX Health is not a partner; we earn nothing from it.

What we published

HeydayMD's Transparency score was 7.0, held there by three items on its own site: a /community answer saying "your physician" orders your labs, a footer on every page that listed bank transfer as the only payment method, and lab-kit wording that called the collection device needle-free. Our review listed them as open.

What was actually true

Read again on 9 October 2026. The /community answer now says "your clinician"; the payment strip on all 245 pages shows Visa, Mastercard, American Express and Discover beside bank transfer; and the lab-kit article, the /labs image descriptions and HeydayMD's two plain-text summaries for AI tools (llms.txt and llms-full.txt) all describe a small upper-arm device with a tiny built-in lancet.

Why it happened

HeydayMD changed its site after we raised the problems. Nothing we published was wrong when we published it.

How we found out

HeydayMD wrote to us that the items were fixed. We treated the messages as leads and re-read every page of its sitemap and both plain-text files, requesting the files in a way that bypasses cached copies so we saw the live versions.

What we changed

The three items are marked fixed on the review, dated 9 October 2026. Transparency 7.0 -> 7.5. The overall score still shows 7.2 and the rank stays #16 of 34. Card payments are still charged by hand rather than by an automated processor; that item stays open.

Does this clinic pay us?

Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner's transparency score up; its shown overall score and its rank did not change.

What we published

We listed Taurus Meds as not publishing a testosterone price ("consult-only") and said the widely quoted $149 a month was not on any page of its site a visitor could reach, only on a campaign page. We scored its pricing at the fixed 6.0 for clinics with no published price, deducted 2.0 from its transparency for the same reason, and described it as offering four formats (injections, cream, oral and enclomiphene). Its overall score was 5.3, #31 of 34.

What was actually true

Read on 11 October 2026: two product pages on taurusmeds.com, /shop/testosterone-cypionate and /shop/enclomiphene, publish "$149/mo" covering a 30-day supply, a routine blood test, clinician support and shipping, after a $49 blood test and consult. Both pages are listed in the site's own sitemap but are not linked from its menus. It sells two formats, testosterone injections and enclomiphene; the cream and oral items appeared only on a campaign page.

Why it happened

Our 18 September check followed the links from the homepage and stopped there; it did not check the site's sitemap, which our own scoring rules require before calling a price unpublished. The four formats came from a campaign page we did not read critically.

How we found out

A full re-check of the clinic on 11 October 2026, when it became an affiliate partner: its own pages, its sitemap, Trustpilot, the BBB, FDA records, court records and Reddit.

What we changed

Pricing is scored on the $149: 6.0 -> 7.5. The no-price deduction on transparency no longer applies; the stored transparency judgment is lowered from 5.0 to 4.0, half a point of it because the price is not linked from the site's normal navigation, so transparency shows 4.0 instead of 3.0. Clinical oversight 5.0 -> 6.0 and experience 5.0 -> 4.5, both now scored on evidence we could read rather than set at its lowest observed score. Treatment options stay 6.5 on two formats. Overall 5.3 -> 5.9, #31 -> #28 of 34.

Does this clinic pay us?

Partner since 11 October 2026 (XenTraffic). This correction moved a partner's score up.

What we published

We said Maximus's $99.99 a month came on an annual plan with at-home lab testing included, described it as an "enclomiphene-first" clinic where patients start on enclomiphene, and listed its cream at $109.99 and cream with enclomiphene at $189.99. Our two comparison articles said Maximus does not publish a restricted-state list, and our verdict page called its BBB record unremarkable. Its overall score was 7.5, #13 of 34.

What was actually true

Read on 11 October 2026: the $99.99 is the rate on a 12-month plan for enclomiphene (6 months for injections or cream) that Maximus says "cannot be ended early"; month to month it is $199.99. Its help centre says follow-up labs are "a separate charge", and the starting kit is $99.99. It offers four protocols side by side and the clinician decides. Cream is $99.99 and cream with enclomiphene $149.98 on a 6-month plan. It does not serve Alabama, Alaska, Indiana or the District of Columbia. BBB has two unaccredited filings with 26 complaints in three years, mostly about being charged before or without service.

Why it happened

Our notes relied on an older Maximus page that still says labs are included, on a pricing column the site never defines, and on its marketing description of the enclomiphene option; we had not read its help-centre policies.

How we found out

A full re-check of the clinic on 11 October 2026, when it became an affiliate partner: its own pages and help centre, Trustpilot, the BBB, FDA records, court records and Reddit.

What we changed

Pricing 8.0 -> 7.0 (the 12-month commitment and the separately billed labs). Experience 8.0 -> 7.5 (the BBB complaint pattern). Transparency stays capped at 4.0 by the open FDA warning letter. Clinical oversight 8.0 and treatment options 8.5 are unchanged. Overall 7.5 -> 7.2, #13 -> #16 of 34. The review, its FAQ, the verdict page, both comparison articles and the 12-month cost were corrected the same day.

Does this clinic pay us?

Partner since 11 October 2026 (XenTraffic). This correction moved a partner's score down.

What we published

We scored DudeMeds' patient experience at 7.5, on discreet delivery, a 24/7 portal and a refund if you are medically ineligible, noting only a "limited review history". Its overall score was 8.0, #3 of 34.

What was actually true

Read on 11 October 2026: DudeMeds' Trustpilot profile shows 2.3 out of 5 from 11 reviews, 64% of them one-star, 9 in the last 12 months, none invited by the company, and no replies to negative reviews. The 2026 reviews describe charges after cancelling, a three-month renewal charged without authorization, support and providers who do not respond, and late medication. BBB rates DudeMeds D+, not accredited, for one unanswered complaint about an unauthorized renewal (listed as "Dude Meds"; until this correction we had wrongly recorded no BBB profile). Our own file had recorded a 2.4 rating since 30 August, but the experience score was never updated to use it.

Why it happened

The experience score was set in June from DudeMeds' own description of its service and was not revisited when we recorded its Trustpilot rating.

How we found out

A check prompted by the gap between DudeMeds' #3 rank and its Trustpilot rating, reading Trustpilot and BBB live on 11 October 2026.

What we changed

Experience 7.5 -> 5.0, level with Hims (2.9 on a much larger review base) and below Fyre Body (3.5 from 50). The other criteria are unchanged. Overall 8.0 -> 7.7, #3 -> #9 of 34.

Does this clinic pay us?

Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner's score down.

What we published

We scored TRT Nation's patient experience at 8.0, based mainly on the named testimonials on its own website. Its overall score was 7.6.

What was actually true

Read on 11 October 2026: TRT Nation's Trustpilot profile shows 2.1 out of 5 from 31 reviews, 68% of them one-star, 21 in the last 12 months; the profile is unclaimed and the company has never invited reviews. The 2026 reviews describe being charged before a doctor approved treatment, up-front payment for months of treatment before speaking to a provider, expired medication, and poor customer service. BBB rates it B, citing 6 complaints and the time taken to respond.

Why it happened

The experience score relied on testimonials the clinic chose to display, and was not updated when we recorded its Trustpilot rating.

How we found out

After correcting DudeMeds the same day, we applied the same check to TRT Nation, reading Trustpilot and BBB live on 11 October 2026.

What we changed

Experience 8.0 -> 4.5. The other criteria are unchanged. Overall 7.6 -> 7.1, #12 -> #16 of 34.

Does this clinic pay us?

Not a partner. We earn nothing from TRT Nation.

What we published

We described DudeMeds' $77 a month as an all-inclusive price that covered lab work, scored its pricing 9.5 and its transparency 7.0, put its 12-month cost at $924, and recorded that it publishes no HIPAA notice.

What was actually true

Read on 11 October 2026: $77 a month is DudeMeds' 12-month injectable kit for patients who supply their own lab work and redo it at 3 months and every 6 months after. Kits that add lab work cost $98 a month on 12 months. Plans renew automatically and the first three months of medication are non-refundable. Its plan prices are shown only as images, its "Forbes-recognized" claim links to a Forbes page that says it earns commissions from the offers shown, and its TRT consent refers to refund stages its terms do not contain. It does publish a HIPAA notice, at /legal/hipaa.

Why it happened

Our earlier notes took the $77 headline as an all-inclusive rate and did not read the plan cards, which are images; the HIPAA page could not be loaded on 30 August.

How we found out

A full re-check of DudeMeds' own pages on 11 October 2026.

What we changed

Pricing 9.5 -> 8.5 and transparency 7.0 -> 6.5. Clinical oversight, treatment options and experience are unchanged. Overall 7.7 -> 7.3. The 12-month cost now uses the kit that adds lab work ($1,176). The review now records the HIPAA notice.

Does this clinic pay us?

Partner, with an active affiliate link. This correction moved a partner's score down.

What we published

We listed a free at-home hormone test kit among AlphaMD's advantages, said its pages describe only injections, and scored its clinical oversight and treatment options at 7.0 each as criteria we could not observe, because we found no published lab review process or second treatment.

What was actually true

Read on 12 October 2026: AlphaMD's at-home testosterone test kit sells for $50. What it covers is the first lab panel, ordered through its lab partner Assist Health at a Labcorp (not yet in New York, New Jersey or Rhode Island); follow-up labs are paid by the patient. Its public member help pages describe the clinical process: a licensed provider reviews results within 1 to 3 business days, follow-up labs fall due about 10 weeks after starting and then every 6 to 12 months, and dose changes need labs from the last 90 days. Besides injectable testosterone it sells an enclomiphene program ($129, $139 or $159 a month on 12, 6 or 3 months) and, to TRT members only, HCG and gonadorelin.

Why it happened

Our earlier reads covered the homepage and treatment pages, not the member help section where AlphaMD publishes its lab and billing rules, and the test kit line was not re-checked after the homepage changed.

How we found out

A re-check of AlphaMD's own pages on 12 October 2026, made while strengthening its review.

What we changed

Clinical oversight 7.0 -> 7.5 and treatment options 7.0 -> 7.5, both now scored on evidence instead of set at the floor. Pricing (7.0), experience and transparency are unchanged. Overall 7.0 -> 7.2, rank 17 -> 14 of 34. The free test kit line is replaced by the free initial lab panel, and follow-up lab costs are now listed as a caveat.

Does this clinic pay us?

Not a partner. We have no affiliate link with AlphaMD and earn nothing from it. This correction moved its score up.

What we published

We docked Enhanced's transparency to 5.0 for showing prices only after its quiz, for its struck-through prices and "only $119/mo forever", and for presenting its $49 refund terms as a contradiction of its "Full refund if not medically eligible" line.

What was actually true

Prices shown after a free quiz count as published prices on this site, marketing anchors are not penalised as long as they are not presented as a guaranteed saving, and a start fee that is not refunded once the services are made available is a fair term stated in Enhanced's Terms: "Once your medical intake has been approved and these services have been made available to you, the fee is non-refundable, including if you elect not to complete your lab work, schedule or attend your consultation, or continue treatment, or if a prescription is ultimately not issued." One deduction stays: the quiz asks for an email or phone number before it shows prices.

Why it happened

The first version applied penalties that our editorial rules do not include: prices shown after a free quiz count as published, marketing anchors are not penalised unless presented as a guaranteed saving, and a start fee kept once the services are provided is a fair term.

How we found out

An editorial review of the new Enhanced page on 12 October 2026.

What we changed

Transparency 5.0 -> 6.0. Pricing (7.5), clinical (7.0), treatment (7.5) and experience (5.0) unchanged. Overall 6.6 -> 6.8, rank 22 -> 21 of 37. The review now quotes the Terms' wording on the $49 fee and describes the struck-through prices as marketing.

Does this clinic pay us?

Affiliate partner (ClickDealer). We earn a commission when a reader buys through our link. This correction moved its score up.

What we published

We held Taurus Meds' pricing at 7.5 because its $149 is shown as "50% OFF" a $299 price with "Limited inventory at this price", and docked its transparency half a point because the $149 product pages are not linked from the site's menus.

What was actually true

Marketing such as struck-through prices and "50% OFF" is not penalised on this site unless it is presented as a guaranteed saving, and a price on a public page that needs no payment, email or phone counts as published. The other transparency deductions stand: "FDA-approved medications" beside compounded hormones, refund promises the refund policy contradicts, patient counts that differ by page, a self-published advertorial and a mail-forwarding address.

Why it happened

The same editorial rules, applied to Taurus Meds on 12 October 2026 so every clinic is scored the same way as Enhanced.

How we found out

An editorial review on 12 October 2026.

What we changed

Pricing 7.5 -> 8.0 and transparency 4.0 -> 4.5. Clinical (6.0), treatment (6.5) and experience (4.5) unchanged. Overall 5.9 -> 6.1, rank 31 of 37 unchanged.

Does this clinic pay us?

Affiliate partner (XenTraffic). We earn a commission when a reader buys through our link. This correction moved its score up.