How we
review evidence
The same peptide can have strong human data for one use and nothing but mouse studies for another. Our job is to show you which is which.
Where the claim came from
Human study
Research done in people, such as clinical trials and observational studies. The closest evidence to real-world use, but size, design, and who was studied still matter.
Animal study
Research in animals such as mice or rats. Useful for early signals. Results often fail to carry over to people.
Lab study
Cells or tissue in a dish (in vitro). Shows a possible mechanism, not an effect in a living body.
Review
A summary of other studies. Only as strong as the studies it covers and how they were chosen.
Company claim
A press release, investor update, or marketing claim. Not peer reviewed. Reported as a claim, not a finding.
Official notice
An agency notice, rule, briefing or meeting record. It tells you what a regulator did or said, not what research found, so it gets a neutral label with no evidence color. We name the agency, link the notice, and say whether a change is proposed or enacted.
General explanations of how research works carry a source number but no label.
How settled it is
Preliminary
Early or limited findings: small studies, single studies, or results not yet repeated.
Established
Findings repeated across well-designed human studies and broadly accepted.
Proposed
A regulatory, legal, or policy change that has been suggested but is not in effect.
Enacted
A regulatory, legal, or policy change that is final and in effect, with its effective date.
What we will and won't publish
- We never give dosing, injection instructions, cycling or stacking protocols, or personal treatment recommendations.
- We separate human, animal, and lab research, and we separate reviews and company claims from original studies.
- We separate preliminary findings and proposals from established findings and enacted changes.
- We don't treat all peptides as the same. Safety, effectiveness, approval, and availability differ from one peptide to the next.
- We report what authoritative sources say, such as FDA, NIH, peer-reviewed journals, and major news outlets for news events. We don't draw our own medical conclusions.
- Every medical and regulatory statement is checked against the source it cites. If we can't match it to the source, we don't publish it.
- We keep education separate from anything commercial and disclose every business relationship.
- When we get something materially wrong, we correct it on the page and record it in our corrections log.
From source to page
- Find sourcesLog the original source and its evidence type.
- Research briefWhat the evidence shows, its limits, and open questions.
- DraftAn original explainer with labels and source links.
- Source checkEvery medical and regulatory line is matched to its source. No match, no publish.
- Approve and publishOur editor approves each page. Regulatory status is rechecked on the day we publish.
Our use of AI tools
We use AI tools to help find sources, draft explainers, and check our work. Every claim is checked against the source it cites, and our editor approves each page before it's published.
Our pages are not reviewed by a doctor or pharmacist. That's why we stick to what authoritative sources say and link to every one, so you can check them yourself.