About
About this site and how we check facts
Who gives Horse Fuel pages their medical review
Dr. Jonathan Clavell, MD, a physician, is the medical reviewer for this website. Their review covers the Horse Fuel product copy, the transcription of the bottle, the ingredient and safety sections and each journal post, and it checks accuracy and safety wording rather than giving personal advice.
Dr. Jonathan Clavell, MD
Physician.
Medical reviewer for thehorsefuel.com: product copy, label transcription, ingredient and safety sections, journal posts.
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 Thehorsefuel, the U.S. stocking partner for Horse Fuel. We are a stocking partner, not the manufacturer and not a clinic. Every page is written by the Horse Fuel Editorial Desk, an internal team, and medically reviewed by Dr. Jonathan Clavell, MD, a physician.
Who we are
A stocking partner
We hold US stock of Horse Fuel 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 personal medical advice. A physician reviews the pages for accuracy, but a page cannot know your history or your medicines, so where a question needs a clinician we say so rather than answering it. On this product that comes up more than usual.
Contactable
The order desk handles tracking, changes and returns; the site desk answers questions about these pages, Monday to Friday 9:00am-5:00pm ET. Both are listed in the site footer, with the New York office at 1775 Broadway and the returns address.
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We do not cite from memory or from another site's reference list.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 13 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 the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements says “No effect on strength, lean body mass, or sex hormone levels” about an ingredient in the product we sell, we print that. When MSK says the maca evidence has been “deemed... to be limited”, 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 twelve such gaps on this product and they are listed in full.
No citation beats a weak one
Where a figure could not be verified, the page says so rather than reaching for a weaker source. No best-before date is legible on the images we hold, no certificate of analysis was supplied, and no Other Ingredients list appears on the label. All three are printed as absences rather than filled in from a competitor's listing.
We publish what does not flatter the product
The arithmetic at the top of the home page, eight numbered label findings, a vitamin D ceiling the bottle does not mention, a 2.0 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 arithmetic pass. The first substantive section of the home page shows that the four marketed botanicals weigh 0.4 mg between them, plotted against the amounts the research actually uses. That section costs us sales and it stays.
- We did not bury the vitamin D ceiling. The 84% figure is on the home page, the ingredients page, the safety page, the how-to-use page and the who-it-is-for page, because a buyer reaching for an energy gummy has no reason to go and check their other labels.
- We did not publish the supplied reviews. 4.5 out of 5, 710 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 round the amounts up. 100 mcg is printed as 100 mcg on every page that touches the formula, never as “0.1 mg of concentrated extract” or any other flattering phrasing.
- We did not tidy the label's errors away. The misspelt “Cholecaliferol”, the sodium percentage that is wrong by sixteen times, the mismatched footnote symbol and fenugreek's Latin name on the tribulus row are all transcribed as printed and then explained, 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 prints the arithmetic on the botanical amounts, scores the product it sells 2.0 out of 5, suggests the smallest pack for a first order, publishes a vitamin D ceiling the manufacturer does not print, prints the label's own errors rather than correcting them, and points you at cheaper single-ingredient alternatives on the who-it-is-for 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 the site desk. 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 November 4, 2026. Contact details in full, including which desk handles which question.
Six claims about this site, and how to check each one
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 “No effect on strength, lean body mass, or sex hormone levels” about an ingredient in the product we sell |
| We checked the arithmetic rather than repeating it | Read the table on the label page. Every percentage on the panel is divided out against the FDA's published Daily Value, including the one that comes out wrong |
| Missing stays missing | Count the bold “not published” entries on the label page. There are twelve in one list |
| We publish what does not flatter the product | The home page prints the arithmetic on the botanical amounts, and our own score is 2.0 out of 5 |
| No invented people | The one named person on this site is the medical reviewer, Dr. Jonathan Clavell, MD, profiled on this page; there is no testimonial and no star rating anywhere on this site |
A seventh test is worth adding, because it is the one this product makes possible. Does the site credit the product where credit is due? The label transparency row on our scorecard is a 3, the highest this desk has given, and the reason is printed beside it. A site that only ever scored down would be as unreliable as one that only scored up.
What an editorial desk is, and is not
Pages here are written by the Horse Fuel Editorial Desk, an internal team, and reviewed by a named physician. It is worth saying what the desk does and does not do.
What it is
The people who read the label photographs, opened the sources, did the arithmetic and wrote these pages. Corrections reach them through the site desk inbox in the footer and are acted on before anything else in the queue.
What it is not
A laboratory, a regulator or a clinic. The desk’s writers are not clinicians; the medical check comes from Dr. Jonathan Clavell, MD, and even that review is not advice about your own health. Where a decision needs medical judgement, this site says so and sends you to your own clinician.
Supplement sites routinely attribute pages to invented experts, complete with credentials and a stock photograph. This site names its desk as the writer and its physician reviewer by name, and the work is checkable in the one way that matters: every source we cite is linked, and you can open it.
Horse Fuel: thirty gummies, one a day
Thirty gummies, one a day, made for men for energy, stamina and vitality support, with every active and its amount printed on the label. The live price and the return terms are both shown on the seller’s checkout screen.
Listing return terms · Questions first? Both desks are on the contact page