What we do
We publish research analyses, structured peptide profiles, research-area hubs and comparisons. Every piece carries two labels that we never conflate: an evidence level that describes how strong the human research is for a specific claim, and a regulatory status that describes what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has actually decided.
What we don’t do
- We do not run advertising, affiliate links or sponsored content on this site, and no vendor pays for coverage or placement. See our editorial policy for our disclosure commitment.
- We do not give dosing instructions or individual medical advice. See our medical disclaimer.
- We do not invent reviewers, statistics or citations. If we can’t verify something from a primary source, we say so or leave it out.
How we work
Our methodology sets out the source hierarchy we follow (regulatory material first, then trial registries, systematic reviews, randomised trials, other human studies, and only then animal or cell work) and how we assign evidence grades. Our editorial policy covers independence, AI assistance, review status and corrections. Every article lists its review status honestly: at launch, articles are editorially fact-checked against primary sources, and independent expert review is labelled as pending until a named reviewer has completed it.
Why the labels matter
“Approved” and “effective” are different questions. Semaglutide is FDA-approved and supported by large randomised trials for weight management; that is established. BPC-157 has decades of animal work and almost no controlled human data; that is preclinical, however popular it is online. Tesamorelin is FDA-approved for one narrow indication and used off-label for others where the evidence is far thinner. Collapsing those into “peptides work” or “peptides are dangerous” is exactly the failure mode we are here to avoid.
Contact
Corrections, tips and study suggestions: contact us. We log substantive corrections publicly on our corrections page.