HealthRX.com Review

What HealthRX.com charges

• Glutathione: $84 — from, per 10 mL vial; the guide page states no billing period, and the seller’s own shop page prices the same compound at $152 billed monthly
• GHK-Cu: $154 — from, per 50 mg vial; the page states no billing period
• Tesamorelin: $224 — from, per 5 mg vial; the page states no billing period
• BPC-157: $174 — from, per 5 mg vial; the page states no billing period
• Semax: $114 — from, per 20 mL nasal spray; the page states no billing period
• Epitalon: $174 — from, per 10 mg vial; the page states no billing period
• MOTS-C: $224 — from, per 5 mg vial; the page states no billing period

HealthRX.com also sells 5 compounds this site boards without publishing a price for them: Sermorelin, NAD+, PT-141, TB-500 (board ranks no provider) and KPV (board ranks no provider).

Twelve compounds sold, seven priced, and the site draws that line itself

Every compound page carries the same access block, and the difference between a priced and an unpriced compound is visible in it.

Seven pages print a figure inside that block and offer a treatment-options control; the other five print no figure and offer an eligibility check instead.

That is a design decision, not an omission, and it means a reader can tell at a glance which molecules have a number attached.

Four of the priced ones are compounds that almost nothing else read this pass prices at all.

Two of its own pages disagree about one compound

The guide page for glutathione prices it by the vial, and repeats that figure in prose further down the page.

A separate shop page for the same compound prices it by the month on a twelve-month plan, and separately names a lowest checkout charge billed monthly.

The monthly number on the shop page is labelled an equivalent by the seller itself, which is the tell: it is an annual total resolved to a month, not a rate anyone is billed.

The vial figure is what this row records, because it is the architecture the other six priced compounds share — and the conflict travels with it.

The state answer is the company's own, and the pharmacy answer is not a name

Its FAQ asks where it offers service and answers in four words, naming all fifty states with no qualifier attached.

That is a claim about this company's service area rather than about a pharmacy's licensure, which is the distinction that decides the flag.

The neighbouring answer about which pharmacy fills a prescription names a category and a license class, and no facility.

Both answers sit in a collapsed accordion, and neither is in the page text until it is clicked open.

What the record does not establish

No operating company under a corporate suffix appears in the footer, the About page or the FAQ, so no entity screen against the federal warning-letter record was possible and none is claimed.

The brand screen returned nothing, run against the whole table pulled locally with a positive and a negative control in the same run.

Lab work is never described as included in what is charged.

Two library paths exist for compounds this row does not declare, and neither was read this pass, so neither is claimed as sold.

How we verified this

• Rendered every page cited on this row in a real browser engine and read the laid-out text nodes, so nothing here rests on markup that never reaches a reader.
• Fired two nonsense-path controls at this host in the same run — one at the root and one inside the section the priced pages live in — and compared the address requested with the address actually served.
• Joined every text node before scanning for a dollar sign, so a figure split across nested elements could not read as an absence.
• Screened this seller in the live federal warning-letter record by brand and, where an operating company is published, by entity — pulling the whole table and filtering locally, because that endpoint's own search parameter is silently ignored.
• Ran a known-good positive control and a nonsense negative control against that table in the same run, and read the company column of every returned record rather than accepting a full-text match.
• Read all twelve compound pages, not only the ones that turned out to carry figures, so the count of priced compounds is a census rather than a sample.
• Read the shop page for glutathione separately from its guide page, and recorded the disagreement between them rather than picking the lower number.
• Rejected the shop page's monthly number as a recorded price because the seller labels it an equivalent and it is a twelve-month total resolved to a month.
• Clicked the service-area and pharmacy answers open, and read whose fact each one states — the company's own coverage in the first, a license class in the second.