Medical Review Policy
Fast Medical Weight Loss is a physician-led telehealth practice. Every piece of clinical content published on this website — from medication descriptions to eligibility criteria — is reviewed by a licensed physician before it reaches a patient. This page explains exactly how that process works.
Last reviewed and updated: April 2025
Overview
Medical review is not a formality at Fast Medical Weight Loss — it is the foundation of how we publish health information. We operate in a clinical space where content errors can lead to patient harm: a wrong dosing statement, an inaccurate side-effect description, or an outdated contraindication could meaningfully affect how a patient uses their medication.
Our medical review policy exists to prevent that. It defines who is authorized to review clinical content, what that review must cover, how often it must occur, and how we disclose the outcome to readers.
Core standard: No clinical claim — including information about drug dosing, efficacy, safety, contraindications, or eligibility criteria — is published or retained on this website without documented physician review.
Reviewer Qualifications
Not all physicians are equally positioned to review weight-loss medicine content. We apply specific qualification requirements to the physicians who review clinical material on this site.
Active U.S. medical license
Reviewers must hold a current, unrestricted license to practice medicine in at least one U.S. state at the time of review.
Relevant specialty training
Reviewers must have training or clinical practice in obesity medicine, endocrinology, internal medicine, family medicine, or a directly related field.
Active clinical practice
Reviewers must be currently practicing clinicians. We do not use retired physicians or those who have been out of clinical practice for more than two years.
GLP-1 prescribing experience
Where available, content covering GLP-1 receptor agonists is reviewed by physicians with direct prescribing experience with semaglutide or tirzepatide.
Acceptable board certifications
Reviewers who are board-eligible but not yet certified may review content under the supervision of a board-certified attending, provided their specialty training is relevant to the content area.
What Gets Reviewed
Physician review is required for all content that makes clinical claims. The following table defines the scope of mandatory medical review on this site.
| Content Type | Review Requirement |
|---|---|
| Medication descriptions | Full physician review required. Covers mechanism of action, approved indications, dosing information, administration routes, and storage. |
| Side effects & safety | Full physician review required. All adverse event information must align with current FDA labeling and published clinical trial data. |
| Contraindications & precautions | Full physician review required. This is the highest-risk content category — errors here carry the greatest potential for patient harm. |
| Eligibility criteria | Full physician review required. Descriptions of BMI thresholds, qualifying conditions, and exclusion criteria must be clinically accurate and not misleadingly inclusive. |
| Clinical trial results | Full physician review required. Reviewers verify that efficacy statistics are accurately reported and properly contextualized. |
| Treatment comparisons | Physician review required. Head-to-head comparisons of medications must be balanced and supported by published evidence. |
| FAQs with clinical content | Physician review required for any FAQ answer that contains drug-specific or diagnostic information. |
| Pricing & program logistics | Operations review only. Medical review not required unless pricing content references clinical eligibility. |
| General wellness content | Editorial review required. Medical review required if the content includes specific clinical recommendations. |
The Review Process
Medical review at Fast Medical Weight Loss follows a structured, documented workflow. Each stage has a defined owner and a clear outcome before content moves to the next stage.
Initial draft with source citations
A medical writer produces a draft and annotates each clinical claim with a primary source — typically FDA labeling, a peer-reviewed trial, or a major clinical guideline. No clinical claim is submitted for review without a supporting citation.
Physician review of clinical claims
A qualified physician reviewer reads the draft in full, with access to all cited sources. The reviewer evaluates: factual accuracy, clinical nuance, appropriate context for statistics, accuracy of safety language, and alignment with current standard-of-care guidelines.
Revision and reconciliation
Any physician-flagged corrections are returned to the writer for revision. Disagreements between writer and reviewer are resolved by the reviewer — physician judgment takes precedence on clinical accuracy questions. All revisions are documented.
Reviewer sign-off
The physician provides documented approval of the final revised content before it is cleared for publication. Content that has not received explicit sign-off is not published.
Editorial and compliance check
An editor reviews the approved content for readability, plain-language compliance, and any claims that may require additional qualification — such as outcome statistics that need population context.
Publication with review date
Content is published with a clearly visible "medically reviewed" date, reflecting the date the physician completed sign-off on the final version. This date is updated only when a qualifying medical review — not a copywriting edit — takes place.
Review Frequency & Triggers
A review date on a page represents a commitment: the information on that page was verified by a licensed physician on the date shown and is scheduled to be verified again.
Standard review cycle
All physician-reviewed content on this website undergoes a full re-review at least once every 12 months. Pages covering GLP-1 medications — an area of rapid regulatory and clinical development — are reviewed on a 6-month cycle or more frequently when warranted.
Out-of-cycle review triggers
A scheduled review date does not mean we wait if new information emerges. Any of the following events triggers an immediate out-of-cycle review:
- FDA approval, label update, or safety communication affecting a medication described on the page
- Publication of a major randomized controlled trial or meta-analysis that materially changes the evidence base
- Issuance of new clinical guidelines by a relevant professional society (e.g., ADA, Endocrine Society, ASMBS)
- A drug shortage, reformulation, or market withdrawal affecting medication availability described on the site
- A confirmed factual error identified by a reader, clinician, or our own team
- A regulatory safety warning, REMS update, or black-box label addition
What a "review date" does and does not mean
The "medically reviewed" date on a page reflects the date a physician completed a formal clinical accuracy review of that page's content. It does not mean the information is guaranteed to remain accurate indefinitely — medical science evolves. Patients should always discuss treatment decisions with their own licensed healthcare provider.
Clinical Accuracy Standards
Our physician reviewers apply a consistent set of accuracy standards when evaluating content. These standards define the threshold that content must meet to receive sign-off.
Dosing information
All dosing information must match current FDA-approved labeling or, in the case of compounded medications used off-label, reflect accepted prescribing practices documented in peer-reviewed literature. We do not publish dosing ranges that exceed approved labeling without explicit clinical context explaining that distinction.
Efficacy statistics
Efficacy claims must be traceable to a named, peer-reviewed clinical trial. The population studied, duration of treatment, and definition of the outcome measure must be accurately represented. We do not publish best-case statistics in isolation — if a trial reports a range of outcomes, we represent that range.
Safety and side effect information
Side effect information must include both common and serious adverse events as documented in FDA labeling. We do not omit serious adverse events because they are rare or because their inclusion might discourage readers from pursuing treatment. Patient safety takes precedence over conversion.
Contraindications
Contraindications listed in FDA labeling are reproduced completely and without omission. Where off-label use involves additional risk considerations not covered by labeling, those risks are described explicitly.
Comparative claims
When comparing two or more medications, our reviewers verify that each comparison is supported by head-to-head trial data or, where such data is absent, that the absence is explicitly noted. We do not imply superiority without published comparative evidence.
Conflicts of Interest
We take conflicts of interest seriously because they can compromise the credibility of medical review even when individual reviewers act in good faith.
Reviewer disclosures
Physician reviewers are asked to disclose any financial relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers, compounding pharmacies, or device companies whose products are described in the content they are reviewing. Reviewers with a direct financial relationship to a manufacturer are not assigned to review content about that manufacturer's products.
Commercial influence on clinical content
Fast Medical Weight Loss does not allow its business interests — including revenue from prescribing a particular medication — to influence the clinical accuracy of content about that medication. Physician reviewers are explicitly instructed that their role is to ensure accuracy, not to optimize content for conversion or patient acquisition.
Reviewer independence
- Reviewers may not be overruled on matters of clinical accuracy by editorial or marketing personnel
- Reviewer sign-off cannot be granted by anyone other than the designated qualified physician
- Content may not be published as "medically reviewed" if the physician's recommended corrections have not been implemented
Limitations of Medical Review
We are transparent about what our medical review process can and cannot guarantee.
What our review process cannot do
- Physician review of website content is not a substitute for an individual clinical evaluation. Reviewed content reflects population-level evidence — it cannot account for a specific patient's health history, comorbidities, or concurrent medications.
- The medical knowledge base evolves continuously. Even recently reviewed content may not reflect a clinical development published after the review date.
- Review is performed by human physicians and is not infallible. Errors can occur, which is why we maintain a corrections process and encourage readers to report inaccuracies.
- Our reviewers are not a substitute for the prescribing physician — the clinician who evaluates a specific patient during an online visit makes independent clinical judgments that may differ from general website content.
If you are making a specific medical decision — including whether to start, stop, or change a medication — please consult directly with a licensed healthcare provider. Content on this website informs; it does not prescribe.
Questions About Our Review Process
If you are a clinician, researcher, or patient with a question about how a specific page was reviewed, who reviewed it, or when it is scheduled for re-review, we welcome your inquiry.
Medical Review Inquiries
For questions about clinical accuracy, reviewer credentials, or our review process for a specific page:
Website: fastmedicalweightloss.org
To report a potential clinical inaccuracy, please use our corrections form or contact our editorial team directly. All clinical accuracy reports are reviewed within 5 business days and escalated immediately if they involve a safety concern.
Book Free Consultation →