Last updated: May 2, 2026
Why this page exists
Most of what’s written about low testosterone online is either selling something, scaring someone, or both. The space is crowded with anonymous blog posts, supplement marketing dressed up as advice, and forum protocols that confuse performance-enhancement with medical care.
LowT Adviser exists for a different reader: a man who is trying to make a careful, informed decision about his own health and wants to walk into a clinical conversation already knowing the right questions to ask. That reader deserves to know how the content he is reading was put together, who wrote it, who reviewed it, what we got paid, and what we did when we got something wrong.
This page documents our editorial standards in detail. It is meant to be read, and it is meant to be auditable. If we ever fall short of what is described here, we expect to be called on it.
The principles
Five commitments shape every article on this site.
Reader first. Editorial decisions — what to cover, what to recommend, what to call out — are made in the reader’s interest, not the advertiser’s. When those interests conflict, the reader wins.
Evidence over opinion. We cite primary sources where they exist: peer-reviewed studies, professional society guidelines, and FDA communications. We try to distinguish claims supported by strong evidence from claims supported by mechanism or expert opinion alone, and we tell you which is which.
Honesty about uncertainty. Medicine has open questions. We say so. When evidence is contested, evolving, or thin, we mark it as such instead of pretending to a confidence we don’t have.
Transparency about money. Every commercial relationship we have is disclosed in plain language, in the article and on a sitewide affiliate disclosure page. Readers should be able to see exactly where our incentives lie.
Accountability for mistakes. We will get things wrong. When that happens, we correct the article visibly, log the correction, and — if the error was material — explain what we changed and why.
Who writes for LowT Adviser
LowT Adviser articles are written by experienced health and science writers with demonstrated work in evidence-based men’s health, endocrinology-adjacent reporting, or clinical education. Every author has a public byline that links to a bio page listing their credentials, areas of focus, and prior work.
We do not publish anonymous content. We do not publish AI-generated content as a finished product. We use AI tools the way most modern newsrooms do — for research support, outlining, and editing — but every published article is written, edited, and signed by a human author who is accountable for it.
Authors disclose any financial or professional conflicts of interest relevant to a piece before they begin work. If a writer holds equity in a company we cover, has a clinical relationship with a brand we review, or is paid by a manufacturer in any capacity, they either don’t write the piece or the conflict is disclosed in the article. We err toward not assigning the piece.
How we source
For each article we aim to use, in this priority order:
- Primary clinical literature — peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials, large prospective cohort studies, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses indexed in PubMed.
- Professional society guidelines — the American Urological Association, the Endocrine Society, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, and the European Association of Urology are the bodies whose guidance we treat as authoritative for hypogonadism management.
- Regulatory communications — FDA drug safety communications, prescribing information, and DEA scheduling notices.
- Reputable secondary sources — major academic medical centers (Mayo, Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, UT Southwestern), the NIH, and the VA — when a primary or guideline source isn’t available or accessible.
- Manufacturer and clinic primary documents — for product-specific claims (formulation, pricing, protocol details), we go directly to the manufacturer or clinic and confirm what we’re publishing reflects their current practice as of the article’s “Last updated” date.
We do not source clinical claims from forums, social media posts, podcasts, anonymous blogs, or affiliate-driven review sites. We may quote those sources when they are themselves the topic — for example, when reporting what a particular community believes — but not as evidence for a clinical claim.
When evidence is limited, conflicting, or evolving, we say so in the article. When we cannot find a primary source for a claim, we either drop the claim or attribute it explicitly to its weaker source so the reader can weigh it themselves.
How we cover products and clinics
LowT Adviser reviews telehealth TRT clinics, supplements, at-home test kits, and related men’s health products. Reviews and comparisons are produced under the following rules.
Independent assessment. We assess products against the same criteria across categories: clinical legitimacy, transparency, pricing, lab cadence and quality, prescriber qualifications, customer support, and refund policy for clinics; and ingredient evidence, dosing, manufacturing standards, and label accuracy for supplements.
Affiliate relationships do not buy coverage or rankings. A clinic or brand cannot pay to be reviewed, pay for a higher rating, or pay to remove a critical review. We have declined offers along these lines and will continue to. If we feature an affiliate partner in a roundup, the partner has met the same threshold every other product had to meet — and a non-partner that is genuinely better gets ranked higher.
Negative coverage is on the table. If a clinic or product fails our criteria, we say so, even when the company is or was an affiliate partner. We have ended affiliate relationships over editorial disagreements before and will again.
Disclosure on every commercial article. Every article that contains affiliate links carries a disclosure at the top, in plain English, before the reader hits any commercial content. The sitewide affiliate disclosure page lists our current partners.
No undisclosed sponsorship. We do not run sponsored content disguised as editorial. If a piece is paid for, it is labeled “Sponsored” or “Paid Partnership” at the top of the page and is not represented as independent editorial.
Pricing, availability, and clinical practice change
Telehealth pricing, prescribing protocols, and clinical guidelines change. We try to keep up.
- Articles display a “Last updated” date prominently.
- Commercial articles (clinic and product reviews) are reviewed at least every six months and updated whenever pricing, formulation, prescriber qualifications, or refund policies change in ways that would matter to a reader.
- Clinical articles are reviewed at least every 12 months, and updated sooner if a major guideline revises, a major trial publishes, or the FDA issues a relevant communication.
- When an article is updated in a way that materially changes its conclusions or recommendations, we note what changed and when, in a short editor’s note at the top of the article.
A “Last updated” date does not mean every claim has been re-verified line by line on that date. It means the article was reviewed for accuracy, the major claims were spot-checked, and the prices, links, and recommendations were confirmed current. We try to be honest about the difference.
Corrections
If we publish something inaccurate, we correct it. The process:
- Reader flags an issue. Email admin@lowtadviser.com with the URL and the specific claim you believe is wrong. Include a source if you have one.
- We investigate. Editorial staff review the claim against our sources and, where appropriate, consult our medical review board.
- We act.
- If the claim is wrong and the error is material (could meaningfully mislead a reader’s health decision), we correct the article, add a dated correction note at the top of the page, and — if the article was already medically reviewed — re-run the change past the original reviewer.
- If the error is minor (typo, broken link, outdated price, non-clinical fact), we fix it silently and update the “Last updated” date.
- If we believe the claim is correct and the reader is mistaken, we explain why, share our sources, and leave the article as written.
- We reply. Every correction request gets a response, usually within five business days.
We log every material correction with the date, the article, the change, and the reason, and we keep that log available on request. If, in our judgment, an error was severe enough to warrant retraction (the article cannot be salvaged through correction), we replace the article with a retraction notice explaining what we got wrong and what we are doing about it.
What we don’t do
A few practices that are common in our space and that we don’t engage in:
- We don’t write articles whose primary purpose is to rank for a keyword rather than to inform a reader. We do care about search visibility — we want to be findable — but content has to earn its place editorially first.
- We don’t publish “100 best testosterone boosters” listicles padded with products we wouldn’t actually recommend.
- We don’t fabricate or imply firsthand experience an author doesn’t have. If an author hasn’t tried a product or hasn’t had a specific clinical experience, we don’t write as if they have.
- We don’t quote medical reviewers as if they wrote sections they didn’t write. Reviewers review; authors write. We label both clearly.
- We don’t scrape competitor content or republish other publishers’ work as our own.
Independence
LowT Adviser is independently owned. We are not owned by, operated by, or under the editorial control of any TRT clinic, pharmaceutical manufacturer, supplement brand, or laboratory. Editorial staff make editorial decisions. Commercial staff handle commercial relationships. The two functions are kept separate, and editorial has the final say on what publishes.
Where any senior person at LowT Adviser holds a financial interest in a company we cover (equity, advisory role, family relationship), that interest is disclosed on this page and on relevant articles, and that person recuses themselves from editorial decisions about that company.
As of the “Last updated” date at the top of this page, no such standing disclosures apply.
Contact and feedback
Editorial corrections and concerns, story tips and source suggestions and general inquiries: admin@lowtadviser.com
We read everything. We don’t always reply quickly, and we cannot answer individualized medical questions (see our medical disclaimer for why), but reader feedback genuinely shapes what we do next.
Changelog
This is where material changes to this page are logged.
- May 2, 2026 — Editorial standards page first published.
