We Opened a Clinic. Here Is the Firewall.
PeptideBenchmark's owner now operates Aperture Clinic, a telehealth clinic. That is a conflict of interest. Here is what it is, what it is not, and the rules that keep it out of vendor rankings, pricing, and sponsorship.
PeptideBenchmark has spent months writing about other people’s disclosures: which coupon codes are affiliate codes, which “independent” claims survive a look at the affiliate program, which research-only brands host dosing forums. That work only holds up if we apply the same standard to ourselves.
So here it is. The owner of this site now operates Aperture Clinic (apertureclinic.com), a telehealth clinic; the ownership disclosure page is the canonical statement of the relationship. That is a conflict of interest. This post says what the conflict is, what it is not, and the rules we have put in place so you can check us.
What Aperture Clinic is
Aperture Clinic is a patient-facing telehealth front door on a white-label platform. Care runs through the platform’s contracted, licensed clinicians and licensed U.S. pharmacies. Aperture does not prescribe anything itself. PeptideBenchmark does not prescribe, diagnose, or treat, and that has not changed.
It is a different business from anything this site benchmarks. PeptideBenchmark covers research-use vendors: catalogs, prices, certificates of analysis, third-party trust signals. A clinic is not a research-use vendor and is not part of that market.
What the conflict is
The obvious one: a site that ranks peptide vendors and grades peptide evidence is owned by someone who also sells physician-guided access to some of those peptides. Readers could reasonably wonder whether rankings, evidence grades, or regulatory coverage bend toward the clinic.
The less obvious one: endorsement and review rules turn on control, not on corporate structure. A separate company name would not make a referral from PeptideBenchmark to Aperture Clinic an arm’s-length recommendation. It is a referral to ourselves, and it has to be labeled as one every time.
The firewall
These are commitments. Each is checkable on the site, the disclosure page is the canonical list, and the first five are also checked mechanically every time the site is built: a build that puts the clinic in a vendor, coupon, or sponsorship registry, or ships a link to it without the label, fails.
- Never scored, graded, or ranked. No PB Score, no trust band, no place on the vendor board or in any comparison or best-of list.
- Never on the pricing board or the Stack Builder. It is not a vendor here and will not become one.
- Never in coupon pages, PB Pick, or any sponsorship slot. The sponsorship program exists so that visibility can be bought without buying a grade. Selling that visibility to ourselves would defeat the point.
- Every link is labeled, where it appears. The ownership statement sits next to the link, not only in a footer or on a page you have to find. No affiliate or referral parameters.
- Placements are narrow and say what they rest on. A labeled note headed Owned by our publisher appears on a handful of peptide profiles, each with a documented, cited basis: an FDA-approved drug, a substance on FDA’s interim Category 1 compounding list, or a substance FDA’s advisory committee has recommended but FDA has not yet acted on. In that last case the note says so, in the same box as the button. It never appears on vendor pages, pricing pages, or tools.
- Editorial coverage does not bend. Reporting on FDA compounding categories, PCAC reviews, and telehealth marketing continues on the same terms, including where it is unfavorable to clinics like ours.
- Independence claims are scoped. When this site says its rankings are independent, it means the vendor rankings and pricing take no vendor money and include no business we own. It does not mean the publisher has no other interests. That is what the disclosure page is for.
How to hold us to it
If you find an Aperture Clinic link anywhere on PeptideBenchmark without the ownership label beside it, that is a defect; tell us and it gets fixed. If a vendor ranking, an evidence grade, or a regulatory piece looks like it tilted toward the clinic, say so publicly. The reason to publish this now, before anyone asks, is so the standard is on record before the first test of it.
What this post is not
It is not medical advice and not a recommendation to seek treatment. It is not a claim that any compound discussed on this site is available by prescription, lawful to compound, or suitable for you. Those remain questions for a licensed clinician, and the evidence grades on our peptide profiles still measure the strength of published research, not efficacy or safety.
Common questions
Is Aperture Clinic ranked or scored on PeptideBenchmark?
No, and it will not be. It has no PB Score, no trust band, and no place on the vendor board, the pricing board, the Stack Builder, coupon pages, PB Pick, or any sponsorship slot. Those are standing rules, listed on the disclosure page, not a description of the current state.
Does Aperture Clinic prescribe peptides?
Aperture Clinic is a telehealth front door. Care runs through the platform's contracted, licensed clinicians and licensed U.S. pharmacies. Whether a compound is appropriate for a person, or can lawfully be prescribed or compounded at all, is their decision. PeptideBenchmark does not prescribe, diagnose, or treat.
Why disclose this at all if the businesses are separate?
Because endorsement and review rules look at who controls a business, not at the paperwork. A separate company name does not remove the conflict, so we are stating it next to every link instead of relying on structure to make it disappear.
Will PeptideBenchmark's regulatory coverage change?
No. Reporting on FDA compounding categories, PCAC reviews, and telehealth marketing continues on the same terms, including where it is unfavorable to clinics like ours. If you think a piece pulled a punch, say so; the contact page is open.