Our Evidence Standards
Every claim on this site is labeled by how strong the evidence behind it is. Here is how we decide.
Animal studies and human trials are not the same thing
A lot of peptide claims come from studies in rats and mice. Those studies are real research, but they do not prove anything about people. Plenty of things that worked in animals did nothing in humans.
So we keep them separate. Every time. If a finding comes from an animal study, we say so in the same sentence as the finding.
Human trials still need context
A human trial can be small, short, unpublished, or paid for by the company selling the product. It can also miss the goal it was designed to test. We note all of that.
If a trial failed its primary endpoint, we say the trial failed, even when the compound is popular.
Regulatory status is its own fact
Approved, investigational, banned, and unregulated all mean different things, and people mix them up constantly.
We state the current status from the source itself. FDA approval is not the same as being removed from a compounding category. Legal to sell is not the same as tested for safety. Allowed in sport is not the same as safe.
Community practice is not evidence
Dosing schedules and stacking advice that circulate in forums often have no published basis at all. Some of the most repeated protocols in this space trace back to nothing.
When we mention what people commonly do, we label it as common practice and we say plainly that it has no study behind it.
Where our sources come from
We use primary sources and we link to them:
- PubMed for published research
- FDA labels and announcements for regulatory status
- ClinicalTrials.gov for trial design and results
- WADA for prohibited substance classifications
If we cannot find a primary source for a claim, we do not publish the claim.
What we do not do
We do not recommend doses. We do not tell you what to take, how much, or how often. We do not rank vendors for money.