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 Thehoneypeakgelatin, the u.s. stocking partner for honey peak gelatin. We are a stocking partner, not the manufacturer and not a clinic. Every page is written and reviewed by the Honey Peak Gelatin 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 stocking partner
We hold US stock of Honey Peak Gelatin and sell it 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. On this product that comes up more than usual.
Contactable
Order desk: +1 (302) 200-3480. Site email: [email protected], Monday to Friday 9:00am-5:00pm ET. Office: 160 Varick Street, Floor 9, New York, NY 10013, USA. Returns: 40 West 57th Street, Floor 20, New York, NY 10019, 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 panel 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 — and on this product they disagree about how many ingredients there are — 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We do not cite from memory or from another site's reference list.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 9 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 MSK says “insufficient evidence to support its use for any of these conditions”, we print that. When it says a varicose-vein claim “is not backed by any evidence”, 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. There are ten such gaps on this product and they are listed in full.
No citation beats a weak one
One ingredient on this label — motherwort — carries no reference, because we could not find one at NIH, NCCIH or MSK. That page says so rather than linking a supplement retailer.
We publish what does not flatter the product
The name problem at the top of the home page, five label contradictions, a diabetes contraindication the bottle does not mention, a 1.8 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 let the name pass. The first substantive section of the home page says that this product contains no honey and no gelatin, and that nothing in it is studied for the strength and energy it is sold for. Those sentences cost us sales and they stay.
- We did not bury the diabetes warning. MSK's butcher's broom contraindication is on the home page, the ingredients page, the safety page and the who-it-is-for page, because a product called Honey Peak Gelatin will be bought by people with diabetes.
- We did not publish the supplied reviews. 4.6 out of 5, 1,129 reviews and eight named customers were handed to us. The star distribution and the customer sentences repeat across unrelated product packs from the same supplier.
- 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. The procedure was supplied and is printed in full; the day count was not, so none is printed, including in places where a number would convert better.
- We did not invent ingredient amounts. Six ingredients, one 121 mg total, no figures. Every page that touches the formula says so.
- We did not tidy the label's oddities away. “Hypoallergenic Free”, “DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS” plural, and the render artefacts in the supplied images are all disclosed rather than quietly corrected.
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 opens by saying the product contains neither of the two ingredients in its name, scores the product it sells 1.8 out of 5, recommends the smallest and worst-value pack, publishes a diabetes contraindication the manufacturer does not print, tells you that one of six ingredients has no citable source, and points you at single-ingredient standardised 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: the images supplied to this desk are product renders, so 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 “insufficient evidence” and “this claim is not backed by any evidence” 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 | The first substantive section of the home page says the product contains no honey, no gelatin and no energy ingredient, and our own score is 1.8 out of 5 |
| 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 worked from product renders, not photographs. The images supplied to this desk are computer-generated, and several words in the rendered panel are misspelled. We transcribed the intended words and flagged it, but a real photograph would be better and we do not have one.
- 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, particularly on the ingredient-evidence row where we gave a 3.
- 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.
Read the panel first, then decide
A 60 ml dropper bottle, 30 servings, one 121 mg blend of six botanicals and no individual amounts. The live price and the return terms are both shown on the seller’s checkout screen.
Listing return terms · Questions first? Call +1 (302) 200-3480