Our approach
How we read research
Our sourcing rules, what each evidence label means, the claims we refuse to make, and an honest statement of what this site is not.
Who writes this
Content is published under the name Peptio Research. We do not present ourselves as doctors, pharmacists or researchers, and there is no individual expert behind these pages.
That is a deliberate choice rather than an omission. Health content online is full of invented credentials and medical reviewers who never read the article. Instead of claiming authority we do not have, we make every page checkable: each statement is tagged with the kind of study behind it and links to that study, so you can disagree with our reading of the evidence by going to the source.
Which sources count
In descending order of weight.
- 01Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of human trials
- 02Randomised controlled trials in humans
- 03Other human studies, including observational and cohort work
- 04Trial records on ClinicalTrials.gov and equivalent registries
- 05Documents from regulators and health authorities, for regulatory and safety statements
- 06Animal and in-vitro studies
Secondary sources such as review articles and news coverage help us find primary research. They never serve as the citation for a substantive claim.
What the labels mean
Every claim carries one of these. The label describes the strongest evidence we found, not the most favourable.
- Meta-analysis
- Pooled results from multiple human trials.
- Human randomised trial
- Tested in humans under randomised, controlled conditions.
- Human observational
- Measured in people, but without randomisation, so cause is not established.
- Human case report
- One or a few individual cases. Cannot show whether an effect is general.
- Animal research
- Observed in animals. Animal results frequently fail to replicate in humans.
- In-vitro
- Observed in cells or tissue outside a living organism.
- Mechanistic reasoning
- A plausible biological explanation, not a measured outcome.
- Anecdotal report
- Self-reported experience. Not evidence of an effect.
What we will not publish
These are hard limits, not editorial preferences. They apply even when a page would get more traffic without them.
No dosing protocols
We report the dose a study used, because that is part of describing the study. We do not turn it into a recommendation, a protocol, or a range to try.
No administration instructions
Nothing about reconstitution, injection technique, or preparation.
No stacks or combinations
Nothing presented as a regimen to follow.
No sourcing advice
We do not tell you where to buy anything, and we do not assess vendor product quality.
No animal results described as human results
If an effect was seen in rodents, the page says rodents.
No uncited claims
Enforced by the build: a claim without at least one real reference fails to compile.
Corrections and revision
Peptide research moves, and regulatory status moves faster. Every regulatory statement is dated. Peptide entries carry the date they were last reviewed against current literature. If you find an error, or think we have read a study wrong, tell us what we got wrong and which source shows it, and we will correct the page.
What this site is not
It is not medical advice, and it is not a substitute for a clinician who knows your situation. Most substances covered here are not approved medicines in any country, which means no regulator has judged them safe or effective for any use in people. A page explaining what research exists is not an endorsement of taking anything.