Things we got wrong, and what we changed
Vetted-marketplace sites rarely publish their corrections. We do, because the entire premise of Designing Longevity is verifiable rigor; if you cannot trust us to acknowledge our mistakes, you cannot trust the rest. Every material correction since the site launched is documented below with the date, what was wrong, and how it was fixed. Cosmetic typos and pure formatting changes live in git history rather than this log; the bar for inclusion here is whether a careful reader would want to know.
Why this page exists
The wellness-and-telehealth review space is full of sites that publish strong opinions and never revise them. We try to be different. When a reader catches a factual error, when a source URL turns up 404, when a claim turns out to be unverifiable, or when a score should change because new information surfaced, we fix the underlying page and document the change here. If you spot something that should be on this list, tell us.
Corrections, newest first
7 corrections logged since site launch.
- Factual errorMay 1, 2026
Function Health profile
What was wrong
The November 2025 Function Health funding round was originally described as a Series E. It was a Series B.
How we fixed it
Verified across TechCrunch, Cooley, PYMNTS, MedCity News, and MobiHealthNews coverage; corrected both occurrences in the Function Health profile to Series B at $2.5B valuation, and added the corrected event to the regulatory timeline.
- Unverified claim removedMay 1, 2026
Henry Meds profile
What was wrong
An early draft of the Henry Meds profile listed an active Novo Nordisk lawsuit alongside the Eli Lilly lawsuit.
How we fixed it
Could not confirm Henry Meds is specifically named as a defendant in any Novo Nordisk case. Removed the Novo lawsuit reference; only the verified Eli Lilly v. Adonis Health, Inc. (4:25-cv-03536) is documented in the Henry Meds profile and regulatory timeline.
- Editorial clarificationMay 1, 2026
About page
What was wrong
The About page previously described Designing Longevity as a 'team' and stated 'we have no affiliate links.' Both were inaccurate: the site is one person, and the marketplace is affiliate-monetized through per-click and per-qualified-consult relationships (with disclosure on every listing).
How we fixed it
Rewrote the 'Who's Behind This' section to honestly describe a one-person editorial operation (preserving E-E-A-T through the rigor signals solo operators can credibly claim). Replaced 'No Conflicts of Interest' pillar with 'Transparent About How This Site Is Funded' that documents the actual affiliate model with link to the methodology page. Editorial schema updated to drop 'Team' from the entity name. Site-wide byline normalized from 'Designing Longevity Editorial Team' to 'Designing Longevity Editorial' across 11 files.
- Editorial clarificationMay 1, 2026
Em dash style sweep across the site
What was wrong
A site-wide replacement of em dashes with commas (per the editorial style rule) was too aggressive in cases where the em dash carried structural meaning (label-content separator on lists, parenthetical setoff for asides). Some content read as comma splices or appeared to merge lists with their preceding nouns.
How we fixed it
Audited the sweep, identified eight categories of artifacts (most material: list-label structure where the original used a label-introducing dash and the sweep replaced it with a comma rather than the grammatically-correct colon), and fixed each category systematically. Documented in commit c3e0730 with specific before/after examples.
- Broken source URLApril 30, 2026
TrimRx profile, accreditations
What was wrong
An early draft of the TrimRx LegitScript verification linked to https://www.legitscript.com/searchresults/?searchString=trimrx as the source. That URL returned 404; LegitScript does not publish a public per-merchant directory.
How we fixed it
Replaced the broken URL with a link to TrimRx's homepage (where the LegitScript-issued badge is displayed) plus an explanatory note that LegitScript does not maintain a public directory. Established a site-wide rule: HEAD-check every external URL before paste. Apologies to readers who clicked the broken link before this was fixed.
- Unverified claim removedApril 30, 2026
TrimRx profile, public reviews
What was wrong
An early draft of TrimRx's public-reviews section summarized aggregated quotes attributed to Reddit. The aggregated quotes appeared in third-party review sites but could not be traced back to specific Reddit posts.
How we fixed it
Removed the unverifiable Reddit summary and replaced it with an honest 'we searched r/Semaglutide and adjacent compounded-GLP-1 subreddits for TrimRx-specific discussion threads as of capture date and did not find recurring named threads' note. Established a site-wide rule: do not summarize Reddit unless you can link to specific threads.
- Factual errorApril 30, 2026
Eden profile, BBB section
What was wrong
An early Eden draft implied BBB-accredited status. Eden's actual BBB profile is 'Not Rated' with the file open since April 4, 2024 with multiple complaints under review.
How we fixed it
Corrected to accurate BBB status; rewrote the accreditation section honestly. Eden's overall score reflects this: 3.6 rather than the higher score the original draft implied.
Operating rules that came out of past corrections
Every correction is also a chance to install a rule that prevents the same mistake. The site-wide rules below were each codified after a specific correction:
HEAD-check every external URL before paste. Came out of the broken LegitScript URL on the original TrimRx draft. Every URL on a published page is HEAD-checked at publish time; URLs returning 404 do not ship.
Do not summarize Reddit unless you can link the specific thread. Came out of the original TrimRx Reddit summary. If a credible Reddit pattern doesn't yield specific named threads we can link, we say so honestly rather than fabricate specificity.
Do not claim a lawsuit unless you can name the docket. Came out of the unverified Novo Nordisk lawsuit reference on the early Henry Meds draft. Active litigation must be named with case number and court (e.g., 4:25-cv-03536, N.D. Cal.) or it does not appear in a profile.
No em dashes in user-facing text. Em dashes are an AI-tell; the site's moat is trust journalism, so the editorial voice should not look AI-generated. A bulk replacement created some artifacts that we then corrected (commit c3e0730), and the rule has held since.
If a claim is specific, the source has to be specific. Came out of multiple early drafts where generic source URLs (BBB homepage instead of the specific provider profile, FDA homepage instead of the specific warning letter) were used to support specific claims. Rule: when the claim names a date, a case number, or a specific finding, the source URL has to point at the specific page documenting it.
Spot something we missed?
Email is the fastest path. Tell me which page, what's wrong, and (if possible) the primary source for the correction. I prioritize corrections in the next review cycle.
Submit a correctionLast updated May 1, 2026.