About
About this site and how we check facts
A short page about the desk that writes these pages: who we are, what standard we hold ourselves to, and the specific things we have refused to publish about this product.
This site is published by Glycomodes, the usa authorized glycomode retailer. We are a retail desk, not the manufacturer and not a clinic. Every page is written and reviewed by the GlycoMode Editorial Desk, an internal team. There is no named doctor on this site, because there is no doctor, and we will not invent one.
Who we are
A retail desk
We sell GlycoMode through a marketplace checkout and we publish the product information you are reading. We did not formulate it, manufacture it or test it. When this site does not know something, it is usually because nobody told us.
Not a medical service
Nothing on this site is medical advice. Nobody here is qualified to give any, and where a question needs a clinician we say so rather than answering it.
Contactable
Order desk: +1 (302) 200-3480. Site email: [email protected]. Office: 270 Lafayette Street, Suite 1203, New York, NY 10012, USA. Returns: 1345 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 33, New York, NY 10105, USA.
The distributor named on the product label is Vitalifes. We are not that company, and we have no more access to the manufacturer's internal data than you do — which is the reason so much of this site says “not published”.
How we check facts
The label wins
Every product fact on this site comes from the bottle photographs or the seller pack. Where the marketing artwork and the Supplement Facts panel disagree, the panel wins and we print both.
Every citation is opened
We do not cite from memory or from another site's reference list. Each of the 8 sources on this site was opened and read, and the sentences we quote were copied from the page, not paraphrased from a summary.
Null findings get quoted too
When NCCIH says the evidence is unclear, we print “unclear”. When NIH says little to no effect, we print that. A source that does not support the product is still a source.
Missing stays missing
If a fact was not supplied, the page says not published. We do not fill gaps with industry averages, plausible defaults or figures from a competitor's listing.
No citation beats a weak one
Two ingredients on this label — L-lysine and tongkat ali — carry no reference, because we could not find one at NIH, NCCIH or MSK. Those pages say so rather than linking a supplement retailer.
We publish what does not flatter the product
Three label contradictions, a 2.2 out of 5 score and no customer rating at all. If this desk only printed the good parts, none of the rest would be worth reading.
What we will not do
Specific refusals, with the specific thing refused, because a general statement of principle is easy and worth little.
- We did not publish the supplied reviews. The star distribution and customer text repeated across unrelated product packs from the same supplier, and one of those packs states outright that its review data is layout copy. So this site carries no rating, no count and no testimonials.
- We did not publish an AggregateRating. No rating exists, so none appears in this site's structured data either. Search engines are told the same thing you are told.
- We did not invent a return window. No day count was supplied, so none is printed, including in places where a number would convert better.
- We did not invent ingredient amounts. Nine ingredients, one blend total, no figures. Every page that touches the formula says so.
- We did not name a doctor, a laboratory or a reviewer. None was supplied. The lot and certificate references we do hold are labelled as draft references, because that is what they are.
- We did not smooth over the blend name. The panel says Test Boost Proprietary Blend and this site says so on every page where it is relevant.
How this site earns
Plainly: we earn a commission when you buy through the checkout link on this site. That is the entire business model. It does not change the price you pay, and it has not changed anything printed here.
The test of that claim is not our word for it. It is that this site scores the product it sells 2.2 out of 5, recommends the three-bottle pack over the six, publishes three label contradictions on its own front page, tells you that two of nine ingredients have no citable source, and points you at single-ingredient alternatives on the ingredients page. A site optimising purely for conversion does none of those things.
Corrections
If anything on this site is wrong, we want to know and we will fix it with a note saying what changed. Email [email protected]. Your bottle beats our page: if your label says something different from our transcription, send a photograph and the page changes.
Last updated September 22, 2026. Contact details in full, including which desk handles which question.
The standard we hold ourselves to, written as tests
Principles are easy to write and hard to check. So here are ours as tests a reader can actually run on this site, each with the place to run it.
| The claim | How to test it |
|---|---|
| Every citation was opened | Click any reference on the ingredients page. The quoted sentence should be findable on the page that opens. If one is not, tell us |
| We publish null findings | Read the benefits page. It quotes "unclear", "little to no effect" and "insufficient research" about the product we sell |
| Missing stays missing | Count the bold "not published" entries on the label page. There are ten in one list |
| We publish what hurts us | Our own score is 2.2 out of 5, and three label contradictions are on the front page |
| No invented people | There is no named doctor, no reviewer, no testimonial and no star rating anywhere on this site |
| Corrections are welcome | Email the site desk. A correction changes the page and moves the Last updated date |
What an editorial desk is, and is not
Supplement sites frequently attribute their pages to a named expert with a photograph, a credential and a short biography. We have not done that, and the reason is worth stating rather than leaving as an absence.
The pages here are written and reviewed by a small internal team. Attaching a stock photograph and an invented name to that work would make it look more authoritative without making it more accurate, and it is a common enough practice that readers have reasonably stopped believing bylines in this category. A desk that says “this is an internal team” is telling you exactly as much as a fabricated expert would, minus the fabrication.
What we do instead is show the working. Every factual claim on this site traces to the bottle or to a source you can open in one click, and where neither exists the page says so. That is a weaker form of authority than a credential and a considerably more checkable one.
Where this site could still be wrong
A method page that only lists strengths is marketing. Four honest weaknesses in how this site is built.
- We read one bottle. Labels are revised, and a later production run may differ from the photographs we worked from. Your bottle is always the better source.
- We cite three bodies and no primary literature. That is a deliberate trade — reviewed summaries over individual studies we are not qualified to appraise — but it means we inherit their blind spots.
- Our scorecard is ours. Six rows chosen by us, weighted equally by us. Another desk could score this product differently and be equally defensible.
- We sell the product. Everything above is written in the knowledge that we earn on it. We believe it has not changed what we print; you are entitled to weigh that claim rather than accept it.
What we would change first
If the manufacturer asked what single change would most improve this product's standing on this site, the answer is not a new claim, a new seal or a new pack size. It is an itemised Supplement Facts panel: nine amounts instead of one total.
That change alone would move the lowest row of our scorecard by three or four points, would make the ingredient pages genuinely useful instead of largely cautionary, and would let a buyer compare this product against a single-ingredient bottle on equal terms. It costs a label revision and nothing else.
Read the label first, then decide
Sixty capsules a bottle, one 1000 mg blend, nine ingredients and no per-ingredient amounts. The live price and the return terms are both on the seller’s checkout screen.
Listing return terms · Questions first? Call +1 (302) 200-3480