How We Research GLP-1 Content

Most health sites do not say much about how their content gets made. We think that opacity is part of why GLP-1 information online feels so uneven — some pages read like pharmaceutical marketing, others like personal blogs, and very few explain the chain of evidence behind a single claim. This page is our attempt to be specific about how GLP1 Protocol articles are produced and where you should push back on what we publish.

What we use as sources

The backbone of every article is FDA prescribing information for the drug being discussed and a small set of high-quality reference materials. Concretely, that usually means: the FDA label for Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, Zepbound, Saxenda, Victoza, Rybelsus, Trulicity, Byetta, and Bydureon; the manufacturer's official patient resources at Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly; the Wikipedia entries for each molecule, which are well-maintained and well-cited; peer-reviewed trial publications cited by name where relevant (SELECT, STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, FLOW, ESSENCE, REDEFINE); and Mayo Clinic and similar institutional references for general drug-class context.

Patient-experience content — what week three actually feels like, what foods help with nausea, what "food noise" describes — is informed by patient communities (Reddit's r/Ozempic, r/Mounjaro, r/Semaglutide; verified GLP-1 forums; first-person interviews) but is not cited as if those are clinical sources. We separate "the FDA label says X" from "patients commonly report Y" in the prose.

We avoid as primary sources: telehealth marketing pages, supplement company blogs, single-clinician YouTube channels, and any site that monetizes a specific compounded product. These can sometimes contain accurate information, but they are not what we cite to establish a fact.

How a single article is built

A topic is chosen based on either a known patient question — pulled from forums, search data, or direct feedback — or a content gap on the site. A brief is written that defines the target keyword, the secondary keywords, the audience's likely starting point, and the sources that will anchor the piece.

A draft is produced from that brief. The draft is fact-checked against the primary sources cited in the frontmatter. Specific claims about dose, timing, indication, and side-effect frequency are cross-referenced with the FDA label. If a claim cannot be supported by an authoritative source, it is either removed, rewritten in softer language ("patients commonly report"), or replaced with a more specific cited statement.

A human editor reads the piece end to end for tone and usefulness. The piece is also checked against the rest of the site for internal consistency: if this article says one thing about, say, the half-life of semaglutide, it should match what every other article on the site says.

Once the piece passes editorial review, it is published with a last_reviewed_at date in the frontmatter. Older articles get periodic re-reviews when new evidence lands — for instance, when Wegovy received its cardiovascular indication based on the SELECT trial, every article mentioning Wegovy's indications needed an update.

What we will not do

We will not give individual medical advice. The disclaimer at the bottom of every article is not boilerplate — it is a real limit. Articles on this site can describe what the FDA label says, what trials have shown, and what patients commonly report. They cannot replace your prescriber's judgment for your specific situation.

We will not promote a specific compounded GLP-1 product or telehealth platform. We cover the category in general terms because patients are using it and need information, but we do not run affiliate links to compounded vendors, and we do not recommend specific sources.

We will not invent numbers. If a percentage or a dose appears in an article, it can be traced to a cited source. If a piece needs a figure we cannot source confidently, we use language that signals that uncertainty ("many patients report," "studies suggest") rather than fake precision.

We will not write articles designed to rank for fear-based queries we cannot support. "Does GLP-1 cause cancer" is a question patients ask, and we cover it — but the article reports what the evidence actually shows (a boxed warning derived from rodent studies, no confirmed human signal), not a search-optimized answer that resolves the anxiety in either direction.

How to push back

If you find something on the site that looks wrong, contradicts your prescriber, or has not aged well, we want to know. The content on this site is not infallible. Our editorial review catches most issues, but the volume of content means errors will occasionally ship. The last_reviewed_at date in each article's frontmatter tells you how recently a human looked at the piece — older dates deserve more skepticism, especially for fast-moving topics like compounded GLP-1 legal status or pipeline approvals.

The goal of GLP1 Protocol is to be the resource we wish we had when we started. That requires being clear about how the resource gets made.

Keep exploring

For the underlying vocabulary, see the GLP-1 glossary. For the current state of the drug class, see the 2026 medication list. For the broader catalog, browse the Resources hub.