Methodology
How we evaluate, rate, and present evidence.
Evidence tiers
Every claim on the site is assigned to one of three tiers:
We are explicit when a peptide has little or no human evidence. We do not manufacture the appearance of evidence by overemphasizing mechanism or rodent findings.
Sources
Primary references are peer-reviewed journal articles indexed in PubMed. We prefer, in order: multi-center RCTs, smaller RCTs, registries and prospective cohorts, narrative reviews, case reports, animal studies, in-vitro work. We cite regulatory decisions (FDA approvals, shortage listings, Category 2 placements) when relevant.
What we treat carefully
- Single-group literature. When nearly all the positive data comes from one research lab, we say so — see BPC-157 (Sikiric group) and epitalon (Khavinson group).
- Mechanism-to-outcome extrapolations. Clear mechanism is not clinical effect. We distinguish between the two.
- Anecdotal reports. We include common reports so pages are complete, but we label them unambiguously as not evidence.
Editorial independence and disclosures
Editorial decisions on this site — what we cover, how we evaluate the evidence, and how we frame claims — are made independently. We do not sell peptides. Where we link to primary research, the links go to PubMed, not to retailers.
Where commercial relationships exist or develop in the future (advertising, sponsorship, or other arrangements that support the operation of the site), they will be disclosed clearly so readers can evaluate the editorial alongside that context. Editorial independence from any such arrangement is the standard we hold ourselves to.
Updates
Pages list a "last updated" date. We revise when major new trials publish, when FDA status changes, or when a correction is warranted. Historical versions are not retained publicly.