This is sexual health content, which Google classifies as YMYL, “your money or your life”, and which deserves to be held to a higher standard than product marketing usually is. This page sets out that standard so you can hold us to it.
What requires clinical review
Always reviewed:
- Anything about erectile dysfunction, its causes, or its management
- Anything about premature ejaculation
- Device safety: wear limits, contraindications, warning signs
- Post-surgical use, particularly after radical prostatectomy
- Any page discussing medication, including PDE5 inhibitors and topical anaesthetics
- Supplement content
Editorially reviewed, not clinically:
- Product comparisons and best-of guides
- Sizing, fit and how-to mechanics
- Cleaning, care and material compatibility
- Lubricant compatibility
A page in the second group that starts making health claims moves into the first group.
Sources we accept
Peer-reviewed literature indexed in PubMed; clinical guidelines from the American Urological Association and the European Association of Urology; position statements and patient material from the Sexual Medicine Society of North America and the International Society for Sexual Medicine; NIH and NIDDK material; and FDA guidance for device classification and claims.
We do not cite other retailers, affiliate roundups, or content marketing from competitors as evidence.
Every health claim on this site maps to a source in the sources block at the foot of the page. If a claim has no source, it should not be there. Tell us and we will fix it.
How we handle uncertainty
Where the evidence is thin, we say so rather than rounding up. The clearest example on this site: constriction rings are well supported for maintaining an erection, and not supported for delaying ejaculation. A 2007 study of 42 men with premature ejaculation found no meaningful change in intravaginal ejaculatory latency time. We publish that, including on the pages selling rings, because the alternative is selling someone the wrong product.
Where a product specification is not confirmed, this site marks it as unconfirmed rather than inventing a plausible number.
Review cycle
Health pages are re-reviewed at least annually, and sooner when guidelines change or a reader flags something. Both the publication date and the last review date appear in the byline, so you can see how current a page is.
Independence
The clinical reviewer’s job is accuracy, not sales. Reviewers are paid for the review, not on commission, and no reviewer’s sign-off is contingent on a page recommending a Mammoth Force product. Where the honest answer is “this is not the right product for that problem,” the page says so.
Current reviewer
Reviewer engagement in progress
The clinical reviewer for this site is being contracted. Until sign-off is in place, health pages carry a “pending medical review” label in the byline rather than a reviewer name. This page will carry the reviewer’s name, credentials, licence state and professional profile links once the engagement is live, and reviewed pages will show the reviewer and review date in their bylines.Report an error
Support@shopmammothforce.com . Include the page URL and what you believe is wrong. Substantive corrections are noted on the page itself.