Editorial Policy

1. What we publish

• Peptide profiles that summarize mechanism, common claims, and key caveats.
• Topic pages (benefits, side effects, dosing education, research evidence) focused on general concepts.
• Tools and calculators intended for education and basic literacy (not dosing instructions).

2. Source standards

When possible, we prioritize primary sources and registries over secondary summaries:

• Peer-reviewed human clinical trials and pharmacology studies
• Clinical trial registries (trial protocols, endpoints, status)
• Regulatory labels and official safety communications
• High-quality reviews or guidelines (used as context, not as sole evidence)

In areas where human data is limited, we may include animal, in vitro, or mechanistic data with clear labeling about limitations.

3. How we describe evidence

We aim to separate what is known from what is hypothesized. When discussing an outcome, we try to indicate:

• Study type (randomized trial, observational, animal, in vitro)
• Population and context (e.g., obesity, diabetes, injury models)
• Strengths and limitations (sample size, bias, endpoints)
• Safety signals and contraindications when they are part of the evidence record

4. Updates, corrections, and removals

We update pages as evidence changes. If you spot an error or a broken citation, please contact us and include:

• The URL of the page
• The specific sentence or section
• A suggested correction with a supporting source

5. Conflicts of interest

We do not sell peptides. We maintain a vendor directory as a convenience for readers, but a listing is not an endorsement. We do not vet, test, or verify vendors, we do not process payments, and we do not accept any payment or other compensation in exchange for listing, ranking, or placement in the directory. If that ever changes, we will update this policy to disclose the arrangement.