Straight to the file
Sections

Paperwork, read carefully. No clinic behind it and no doctor on the masthead.

How this site is paid, and the longer list of what it turns down

Two commission links, on one page, disclosed where they sit. The refusals are longer than the earnings, and both lists are published here.

A site about a prescription medicine that earns money from that medicine has a problem to solve in public. Here is how this one solves it: by keeping the paid surface tiny, putting it all in one place, naming the free alternatives first, and publishing everything it has turned down.

What is paid

Exactly two links, both on the finasteride page, in the section about routes to a prescriber. They go to Keeps and to Hims, two US services that put a questionnaire in front of a prescriber and arrange supply through a pharmacy if one agrees. Both are marked sponsored and nofollow, both sit inside a block that says they are commission links, and a note near the top of that page says so before you reach them.

If either programme approves this site, a commission may be paid when someone signs up after following one of those links. As things stand the links point at the companies' own home pages, because neither programme has approved this domain yet. Nothing about that changes what is written on the page.

What pays nothing, and is named first anyway

  • Your own GP. The first stop for almost everyone, and the only route where someone has your history. In the UK the hair-loss tablet is not funded by the NHS and is a private prescription, which the MHRA states plainly.
  • A dermatologist, where the diagnosis is not obvious — patchy, scarring, sudden or painful loss needs a diagnosis, not a product.
  • A generic prescription filled at a pharmacy. Finasteride is long off patent and sold generically. No pharmacy link appears anywhere on this site and none will.
  • Reading the source documents yourself. Every regulator link on this site is an ordinary link that earns nothing.

The refusals, in full

These are published because a refusal that nobody can see is not a policy. Reversing any of them would mean rewriting this page first.

  • Anything that sells or ships the medicine. No pharmacy, no compounding pharmacy, no importer, no discount-card programme, whatever it pays. This site does not put a reader one click from a prescription drug.
  • Ro. Its programme terms could not be confirmed at their own source, so there is no link to it here, and it is reviewed nowhere on this site.
  • ClickBank and Digistore24 hair-loss offers. Aggressive-claim information products in a health category. Refused outright.
  • HealthTrader. Pharmacy-style offers with per-country regulatory exposure. Refused.
  • Luviacure. Its ambassador pitch advertises earnings in the thousands per month; that is a recruitment model, not a health product. Refused.
  • Flymedi and Medigance. Listed only through third parties and unverified as facilitators. Refused pending verification that has not happened.
  • Capillus. No link, by standing decision, and it is not named as a recommendation anywhere here.
  • HT.clinic. An unvetted clinic network. On hold, no link.
  • Bosley. Its affiliate programme is closed, and it is not a head term or a link here.
  • Clinic and surgeon referrals of every kind, including patient-facing marketplaces that are paid by clinics rather than by publishers. This site recommends no clinic and ranks none.

Rules that govern the writing

  1. A commission never decides what a page says. The two paid links sit beside a table that names the free routes first and says so.
  2. No paid link appears on a page about side effects, on any post, or anywhere in a numbered list of steps.
  3. No medicine is rated out of ten on this site, so no score can be influenced by a payment.
  4. Nothing here is written to persuade anyone to start treatment. If this site works, some readers will leave it having decided not to.

The regulatory bit

US readers: the FTC requires clear and conspicuous disclosure of material connections, which is why the disclosure sits in the same block as the links rather than in the footer. UK readers: the CAP Code requires advertising to be obviously identifiable, and the same block does that job. If you think either disclosure is not clear enough where it sits, say so — that is a defect worth fixing.