Editorial policy

Every claim carries its source

Every medical or efficacy claim on The NAD Review is tied to a primary source — a peer-reviewed study or official regulatory documentation — and cited inline where the claim is made. Those citations are checked mechanically: a build fails if any citation marker in an article does not resolve to a real reference in that article's source list. We separate what has been shown in humans from what has been shown in cells or mice, and we say when a result is a biomarker rather than an outcome a person would feel.

Prices are read, not repeated — and dated

Every price we publish for a provider was read on that provider's own site, in a browser with JavaScript running, on a date we print beside the figure. That method is not fussiness: a large share of this category prices client-side, and a plain fetch had already produced wrong verdicts here — including “publishes no price” about two providers who publish one.

When a headline number is not the number you would pay — a “starting at” floor, a prepaid block written as a monthly rate, an intro month, a membership stacked underneath — the review names that mechanism explicitly. When we cannot re-read a site, we say so and refuse to reprint an old figure as current. Prices carry the date they were verified so you can judge for yourself how fresh they are.

Every review has to be uncomfortable somewhere

Each provider review carries at least one finding the provider would rather we left out — a fee, a contradiction between their own pages, a claim outrunning its evidence. A review with nothing uncomfortable in it is marketing, so this is enforced as a requirement rather than a habit, and it applies to companies that pay us exactly as it applies to companies that do not.

You will not find a score, a star rating, or a grade anywhere on this site. A number would turn an editorial judgment into a measurement we never took. Reviews end in a sentence instead.

Regulatory findings: disclosed, never weaponized

We screen the providers we cover against the FDA's warning-letter index on a monthly cadence. Where a letter exists, we state that it exists, to which legal entity, and when — on every page that recommends or ranks that company, not only in its review — and we link the searchable index so you can read the record yourself.

What we do not do is restate what a letter alleges or treat one as a verdict. A warning letter is a disclosure a reader deserves, not a disqualification we impose, and a company carrying one can still be ranked and still be recommended on its merits.

Who writes this

The NAD Review is written and edited by Marcus Hale, Longevity Research Editor — a pen name, which we state plainly rather than dress up. The writing is research editing, not clinical practice: no medical credential is claimed here, and nothing on this site is medically reviewed or is medical advice. It is a reading of the published literature and of what sellers publish about themselves, and it is not a substitute for a conversation with a licensed clinician who knows your history. Our medical disclaimer has the full version.

Money, and what it moves

Some outbound links here earn us a commission at no extra cost to you. What that money affects is order — affiliate partners are listed first on ranked pages, which we state on the page rather than let you infer. What it does not affect is any fact, verdict, price, or red flag we publish. Partners are compared in the same grid, on the same columns, as everyone else; we publish reviews of paying partners whose products our own evidence pages say do not work. The full accounting is in our disclosure.

Corrections

If something here is wrong, tell us and we will fix it. Email hi@thenadreview.com with the page and what you believe is inaccurate — a link to the source that contradicts us is the fastest route. Corrections are made to the page itself, not buried in a footnote, and where a published claim materially changes we say what changed rather than editing quietly. That applies to prices that have moved, which we would rather hear about from you than reprint for another month.