TelePeptide Review

What TelePeptide charges

• NAD+: $169/mo — the month-to-month column, printed as "NAD+ Energy & Longevity — Shot · nasal spray · sublingual tablet — Monthly — No commitment — $169/mo". The same row publishes the alternatives with their upfront totals attached: "6-month — $834 upfront — $139/mo" and "Annual — Best — $1,548 upfront — $129/mo". One figure covers all three routes
• Sermorelin: $159/mo — the month-to-month column, printed as "Sermorelin Therapy — Self-administered subcutaneous shot · or sublingual troche — Monthly — No commitment — $159/mo", with "6-month — $654 upfront — $109/mo" and "Annual — Best — $1,188 upfront — $99/mo" beside it. The page adds "Every price includes clinician evaluation, prescription" and shipping

The prepayment is shown as a prepayment

Each product occupies one row of a pricing table with four columns. The first is labelled monthly and carries the words no commitment. The others are term lengths, and each of them prints the upfront charge and the per-month figure that charge divides into, side by side.

That is the disclosure shape almost every other seller in this batch fails to produce. A discounted figure with the total attached cannot be mistaken for a billing cycle, because the total is right there.

This site records the month-to-month figure for both peptides, and writes the whole ladder into the qualifier — including the upfront totals — so a reader comparing against a seller that publishes only its lowest number can see what that number would cost here.

The three-month column is empty on both peptides, so the ladder jumps from a month to six.

The headline range still starts at the annual rate

Above the table the seller advertises a range whose bottom is the lowest figure in the whole catalogue. That figure requires a twelve-month prepayment, and only the table shows it.

So the criticism levelled at sellers who advertise a prepaid rate does apply here, in the headline. What is different is that the table two paragraphs below resolves it completely rather than leaving it to a footnote or a terms document.

An earlier assessment recorded this seller as one where every figure carried an annual-prepay footnote and treated it as a seller quoting a twelve-month commitment as a month. Read live, the ladder is published in full and the month-to-month column is labelled as such. That assessment is corrected here.

The page also states that every price includes the clinician evaluation, the prescription and shipping, and that nothing is billed until a clinician prescribes.

One figure covers three routes

The coenzyme row names three delivery formats — a shot, a nasal spray and a sublingual tablet — under one set of figures. The growth-hormone row names two: a subcutaneous shot or a sublingual troche.

That is unusual and it cuts both ways. It removes a decision a reader would otherwise have to price, and it means a comparison against a seller who charges differently for a spray and an injection is comparing a bundle against a line item.

The roster records the injection route on both rows and names the alternatives in the qualifier, so the bundling is visible rather than flattened.

The seller states a service area as a count of states plus the federal district, not as a list, so a reader cannot check their own state against it.

The research-use phrase here means the opposite

The seller's about page contains the phrase research use only. An automated category scan would flag it and, on a market where a large minority of sellers genuinely are research-chemical vendors, might file this one among them.

Read in its sentence, it is a contrast: the seller is listing what a reader does not get — no insurance, no waiting room, and no vials of that kind. It is a claim about being a clinical channel, made by naming the alternative.

This is the clearest example in the batch of why a category match has to be read in its sentence. The phrase that would have classified this seller is the phrase in which it refuses the classification.

The company is named as a trading name of an operating company, and the same page states that the operating company does not itself practise medicine or employ the prescribing clinicians. No dispensing pharmacy is named and no certificate of analysis exists on the pages read.

How we verified this

• Loaded the homepage, the about page and the pricing page with a full browser user-agent, printing the effective URL beside the requested one on each.
• Ran a nonsense-path control on the host in the same run, which returned a clean not-found status.
• Joined the page's text nodes before matching any figure — necessary here because the pricing table renders each cell separately.
• Read each product row across all four columns and recorded the upfront totals alongside the per-month figures, rather than recording the lowest number.
• Recorded the month-to-month figure as the roster's price for both peptides, with the full ladder written into the qualifier.
• Re-read the phrase that an earlier assessment used to categorise this seller, in the sentence containing it, and recorded that the sentence refuses the category rather than asserting it.
• Read the about page in full for the trading name, the operating company, and its statement that it does not employ the prescribing clinicians.
• 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.