Levers Health sells its antioxidant in one-, two- and four-month supplies at three published figures, and a banner on the same site advertises the same injection at barely half the one-month price.
What Levers Health charges
Glutathione: $187 — a SUPPLY QUANTITY purchased outright, not a billing cycle: the product page's variant list reads "Glutathione - 1 Month Supply - $187.00", with "2 Month Supply - $327.00" and "4 Month Supply - $597.00" beside it. ⛔ A banner on the same site advertises "Summer Glow Up: Glutathione Injections for $109", alongside a dated discount code — two figures for one product, live together, and the banner one carries an expiry
NAD+: $247 — the floor of a published range, printed as "NAD+ Injection — Metabolism & Energy — Regular price From $247" with no billing period attached. ⛔ This is the figure an earlier sweep attributed to this seller's antioxidant; it belongs to the coenzyme
Levers Health is not a paid partner; this link may earn a commission if that changes. Full disclosure.
By Nora Castellan, Standards EditorUpdated September 2026
A right number can carry a wrong product
An earlier assessment of this seller recorded a range floor as its antioxidant price. The figure is real and it is live on the antioxidant page today. It is not the antioxidant's figure.
It sits on the coenzyme card in the related-products rail at the foot of that page, under the coenzyme's own name and its own category label. The antioxidant's own price sits higher up, in a variant list.
This is a specific and dangerous failure mode: the number is correct, the page it was read from is correct, and the product it was attached to is wrong. Nothing downstream catches it, because a price audit checking that a figure exists on its source page would pass.
This roster carries both figures, each against the product whose card actually bears it, and the qualifier on the coenzyme row records the correction.
Three supply lengths, three figures, one calculation
The antioxidant is sold as a one-month, two-month or four-month supply, each variant listed with its own figure on the product page.
Publishing all three makes the multi-month discount calculable rather than implied, which almost nothing else on this roster allows. A reader can see exactly what committing longer saves.
These are supply quantities purchased outright rather than a billing cycle, so the roster records the one-month variant as a figure that is not a monthly rate, with the other two in the qualifier.
The coenzyme figure is the floor of a range with no period attached at all.
A banner price and a product price, both live
A site-wide banner advertises the antioxidant injection at a figure well below the one-month variant, alongside a dated discount code with an expiry only days away.
Both are published, on the same site, on the same day. Neither is the price in any settled sense, and this site records the product-page figure with the banner figure and its expiry in the qualifier.
The expiry matters for a different reason: a comparison built on the banner number decays on a known date, and a site that recorded it without the date would have no way to know when it went stale.
This is the only figure in this batch that arrives with its own expiry printed on it.
A well-documented company, and a host that rate-limits
The operating company is named across several pages, in a copyright line and in a contact block with a full street address, and it appears in the consent language on the same pages. It is one of the better-documented entities in this batch.
Screened by that entity and by the brand against the regulator's warning-letter index, nothing returns.
This host returned a rate-limiting response to an earlier sweep's concurrent probe. Probed one request at a time it returned normally, with an honest not-found on its control. A rate limit is not evidence about a business and this seller is on the roster because that was re-tested rather than assumed.
The site claims third-party testing in its terms and a purity test on the product page, with no certificate reachable. No dispensing pharmacy is named and no state coverage list is published.
Who it's for
Readers buying a multi-month supply outright who want the discount calculable rather than implied.
Buyers who want an operating company documented with a street address across several pages.
Anyone who wants a copper-peptide topical in the same catalogue as the injectables.
Shoppers who will check a banner figure against the product page before believing either.
Who should look elsewhere
Anyone who needs one settled figure, since a banner and a product page disagree by a wide margin.
Readers who want a billing period, which neither peptide figure states.
Buyers who want a certificate behind the site's testing language.
Shoppers who want a named dispensing pharmacy or a state coverage list.
Strengths
Publishes three supply lengths at three stated figures, so the multi-month discount is calculable rather than implied
One of the best-documented operating companies in this batch — named across several pages with a street address and a copyright line
Carries a copper-peptide topical alongside the injectables, which few sellers here do
Shows a customer review count on the product card rather than an unsourced rating alone
Trade-offs
A banner figure and a product-page figure for the same injection differ by seventy-eight dollars
The banner discount is date-stamped, so any comparison built on it decays on a known day
Claims third-party testing in its terms and a purity test on the product page, with no certificate reachable
No pharmacy named and no state coverage list
How we verified this
Probed this host one request at a time with gaps between fetches, because an earlier concurrent probe drew a rate-limiting response — which is a fact about the probe, not about the business.
Loaded the antioxidant product page and the about page with a full browser user-agent, printing the effective URL beside the requested one on both.
Ran a nonsense-path control on the host in the same run, which returned an honest not-found status.
Joined the page's text nodes before matching any figure, so a price split across elements could not read as an absence.
Read each figure together with the product name and category label on the card bearing it, which is what surfaced the misattribution in the earlier assessment.
Recorded the supply-length variants as quantities purchased outright rather than as billing cycles.
Recorded the banner figure and its stated expiry in the qualifier rather than as the price.
Screened the operating company and the brand against the regulator's warning-letter index, with a nonsense query as a control in the same run.
A provider to compare Levers Health against
Trellis Vitality
Trellis Vitality frames its program around body-composition tracking rather than scale weight, pairing NAD+, glutathione and tesamorelin with at-home biomarker panels and a 90-day re-test, and names its dispensing pharmacy, VialsRX in Houston, by address.
Its product page lists one-, two- and four-month supply variants at three figures. A site banner advertises the same injection well below the one-month figure, with a stated expiry.
Is the coenzyme priced?
Yes, as the floor of a range with no period attached, on a card in the related-products rail of the antioxidant page.
Are these monthly subscriptions?
They are supply quantities purchased outright. Neither figure states a billing cycle.
Why was this seller nearly missed?
Its host returned a rate-limiting response to a concurrent probe. Probed one request at a time it responded normally — a rate limit is never evidence that a business is gone.
Is there a certificate of analysis?
No. The terms claim third-party testing and the product page claims a purity test, and no certificate is reachable.
Levers Health is not a paid partner; this link may earn a commission if that changes. Full disclosure.