Editorial standards
How we research, write, and correct ourselves
Peptide content online is dominated by people with something to sell and no obligation to be accurate. These are the rules we hold ourselves to — publicly, so you can hold us to them too.
Primary sources first
We cite the FDA, peer-reviewed journals, and official regulatory materials directly. When we reference secondary analysis, we say so and link it. If a claim only exists on a seller's blog, it doesn't go on this site.
We label the strength of evidence
Animal research gets called animal research. Early findings get called early. We would rather lose a reader to honesty than keep one with a claim the science can't carry.
Legal status is stated plainly
If something is not legally available, we say that clearly — even when demand for it is enormous, and even when saying so costs us traffic or sales.
No invented experts
We do not attach fabricated names, credentials, or 'medically reviewed by' badges to our content. When a licensed clinician reviews an article, that person will be named, real, and will have actually read it.
No before-and-after theater
No transformation photos, no guaranteed outcomes, no timelines invented for marketing. Individual results vary, and pretending otherwise is how this industry earned its reputation.
Dated and revisited
Every article carries a publication and last-updated date. Regulatory content is re-checked whenever authorities act, and updated in place rather than quietly left to rot.
Corrections are public
If we get something wrong, we fix it and note what changed. You can reach us with a correction at any time — a primary source beats our prior draft, always.
Education is not a prescription
Nothing on this site is medical advice or a recommendation to use any substance. Treatment decisions belong to you and a licensed provider who knows your history.
Found an error?
Send it with a source and we'll review it. Corrections are logged on the affected page.
Contact us →