How We Source
and Verify Information

Every peptide profile begins with searches across PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the journals where peptide research is most actively published. Secondary sources are noted but never substitute for primary research.

The "mechanism" section of each profile is verified against pharmacology literature. We name specific receptors (e.g., GHS-R1a, MC4R) rather than vague descriptions. When mechanism is debated in the literature, we present multiple hypotheses.

We distinguish between "FDA-approved," "Phase II completed," "preclinical animal study," "approved in Russia," and "no human safety data." This precision matters because conflating these is the most common source of misinformation in the peptide community.

The "benefits" listed for each peptide reflect outcomes observed in published research. We avoid extrapolation, anecdote-as-evidence, or claims pulled from supplement marketing material.

Where adverse events have been reported in research, we document them. Where long-term safety data is absent, we say so explicitly. The absence of reported side effects is not evidence of safety.

Peptide research moves quickly. We review each profile at least quarterly to incorporate new clinical data, trial results, and regulatory developments. Significant updates are noted on the profile.