Our method
Editorial policy
Every page here starts from primary research — real studies, real regulatory records — translated into plain English and graded honestly for how strong the evidence actually is. We cite our sources on every claim, we date anything that can go stale, and we never invent a study, a number, a credential, or a personal story. That last rule has no exceptions.
Where our facts come from
We build pages from the sources a researcher would check themselves, not from other blogs. Primary sources we use:
- PubMed / PMC — peer-reviewed studies and reviews.
- ClinicalTrials.gov — trial registrations, status, and results.
- FDA and DailyMed — approvals, labels, and regulatory actions.
- USADA / WADA — anti-doping status for anyone who competes.
- Peer-reviewed journals directly, when a study is the whole point.
We do not cite vendor sites, supplement shops, or other blogs as evidence. They can tell you what a compound is marketed as; they cannot tell you what the research found. When we mention that "some users report" something, we label it as community experience, attribute it, and never dress it up as a study.
How we grade the evidence
A rat study and a randomized human trial are not the same thing, and most research peptides have only ever been tested in animals or test tubes. So every substance page carries an evidence tier that says exactly what kind of proof exists — from Human RCT down to Animal-only, In-vitro, and Anecdotal — plus a plain-sentence verdict on what that evidence actually found. The two are kept separate on purpose: strong evidence that something doesn't work is still strong evidence. The full method is on the evidence-grading page.
Dosing and regulatory status
Doses appear as information, never as a prescription: "the dose used in this study was X," or "the dose commonly reported in the community is Y — note, not clinically validated." We do not write personal injection protocols. Regulatory status (FDA approval, scheduling, banned-in-sport flags) is volatile, so every such claim is dated and sourced, and we re-check it rather than let it rot.
The no-fabrication rule
This is the line we will not cross. No invented studies, statistics, citations, authors, credentials, or reviewers. No made-up testimonials — inventing one would be illegal under FTC rules and would torch the only thing that makes this site worth reading. If we don't know something, we say so. "No human data exists for this" is a finding we publish proudly, not a gap we paper over.
How AI and human authoring fit together
We use AI tools to help gather sources, draft, and check consistency — the same way a writer uses a search engine and a spell-checker, just more capable. A named human author stands behind every page, makes the editorial calls, and owns the result. AI is never allowed to invent a fact or a citation; every source is a real, verifiable record, and the honesty rules above bind the machine exactly as they bind us.
Authorship and independence
Every page carries a real byline that links to a realauthor bio — a self-researcher, not a doctor, and we never claim otherwise. We sell nothing: no products, no affiliate links, no sponsored posts. That independence is deliberate, and it's spelled out on theindependence page.
Fixing mistakes
We get things wrong sometimes, and when we do we fix them in the open. If you spot an error, our corrections policy explains how to report it and what happens next. The fastest way to reach us is on thecontact page.
Educational information, not medical advice.