Sources & Methodology
Every claim on this platform traces to a verifiable source. This page explains where our information comes from, how we evaluate it, and what standards we apply before publishing.
Primary sources we rely on
We prioritize primary sources over secondary aggregators wherever possible. A primary source is the original publication, database, or official record — not a summary of it written by someone else.
Biomedical research
PubMed / MEDLINE
Primary sourceThe primary database for peer-reviewed biomedical and life sciences literature. Every evidence tier rating on this platform is based on published research indexed here.
ClinicalTrials.gov
Primary sourceThe official US registry of clinical trials. We use this to verify trial status, phase, enrollment, and outcomes for compounds with human study claims.
Cochrane Library
Primary sourceThe gold standard for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. When a Cochrane review exists for a compound or indication, we cite it as the highest-quality synthesis of available evidence.
Regulatory sources
FDA.gov
Primary sourcePrimary source for drug approval status, warning letters, enforcement actions, advisory committee meeting records, and the Federal Register notices covering compounding regulations.
Federal Register
Primary sourceOfficial journal of the US federal government. All PCAC hearing announcements, 503A Bulks List changes, and formal rulemaking notices are published here first.
FDA Advisory Committee Records
Primary sourceOfficial meeting minutes, vote tallies, and briefing documents from the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee (PCAC) hearings — including the July 23-24, 2026 hearing covered on this platform.
Legal and enforcement
PACER — Federal Court Records
Primary sourcePublic Access to Court Electronic Records. Used to verify federal court filings, case numbers, and case outcomes cited in enforcement coverage — including the Paradigm Peptides criminal prosecution.
US Attorney Press Releases
Primary sourceOfficial press releases from US Attorney offices documenting prosecutions, plea agreements, and convictions cited in our vendor enforcement coverage.
Vendor quality
Janoshik Analytical
Third-party labThird-party peptide testing laboratory whose results are publicly verifiable by task number. Referenced in our COA guide as a credible independent testing source.
MZ Biolabs
Third-party labUS-based analytical laboratory providing HPLC purity and mass spectrometry testing for research peptides. Referenced in vendor quality evaluation.
Finnrick Analytics
Third-party testingIndependent peptide product testing platform that has published systematic quality evaluations of multiple major vendors including documentation of quality failures cited in our enforcement wave coverage.
How we assign evidence tiers
Every compound in our database receives an evidence tier from 1 to 5. Here is exactly what each tier requires and how we determine it.
| Tier | Criteria | Source requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 5 — FDA Approved or Phase III Completed | Completed Phase III randomized controlled trial published in peer-reviewed literature AND/OR full FDA New Drug Approval. Compounds: Semaglutide, Tirzepatide, Sermorelin, Tesamorelin, PT-141, Melanotan I, Oxytocin, Gonadorelin. | FDA approval database + published Phase III trial in PubMed. |
| Tier 4 — Strong Clinical Data | Multiple Phase I or II human RCTs published in peer-reviewed literature. Approved in multiple countries for clinical use. Consistent positive signal across independent research groups. | Minimum 3 published human RCTs in PubMed from independent research groups. Compounds: GHK-Cu, Thymosin Alpha-1, Cerebrolysin. |
| Tier 3 — Human Data Exists | At least one published human clinical study (any phase) OR Phase I safety data published. Substantial preclinical data from multiple independent research groups. | At least 1 published human study in PubMed + supporting preclinical literature. Compounds: BPC-157, TB-500, Semax, Epitalon, MOTS-c, Retatrutide, Ipamorelin, KPV. |
| Tier 2 — Limited Human Data | Primarily preclinical (animal or in vitro) data. Limited or no published human clinical trials. Mechanistically plausible based on published research. | Published preclinical research in PubMed. Human data absent or very limited. Compounds: Humanin, Thymulin, SLU-PP-332, IGF-1 DES, Dihexa, Tesofensine. |
| Tier 1 — Preclinical Only | Animal or in vitro data only. No published human clinical trials. Mechanism proposed but not validated in humans. | At least one published preclinical study. No human data available. |
How we determine regulatory status
Regulatory status for each compound is determined by cross-referencing:
- FDA.gov drug approval database for FDA Approved status.
- The 503A Bulks List published by FDA for Category 1 status.
- Federal Register notices for formal rulemaking actions.
- PCAC meeting records for committee recommendation status.
- FDA warning letters database for enforcement actions.
We update regulatory status when official FDA actions are published in the Federal Register or on FDA.gov — not based on community reports or vendor claims. The date of last regulatory review is noted on each compound profile where status has changed.
A note on the July 2026 PCAC hearing: vote tallies cited in our PCAC coverage are sourced from official FDA advisory committee meeting records, contemporaneous reporting by AJMC (American Journal of Managed Care), PeptidesInsider, and Velox, all of whom covered the hearing in real time. We cross-referenced all vote counts across multiple independent sources before publishing.
What we explicitly do not rely on
Vendor product pages and marketing materials. Vendors have a financial interest in presenting their products favorably. We never use vendor claims as evidence for efficacy or safety.
Forum posts and community anecdotes. Reddit threads, Discord communities, and personal testimonials are not evidence. They are data points about user experience — useful for understanding what questions people have, not for establishing what compounds do.
AI-generated summaries of research without primary source verification. We use AI tools in our workflow but verify every specific claim against the original published source before including it in platform content.
Social media claims as evidence. We do not use statements made on social media platforms — including by physicians, researchers, or influencers — as primary sources for efficacy or safety claims. Any claim about what a compound does or does not do requires a published, peer-reviewed source.
Featured educational video content is different. We embed video content from Huberman Lab, Dr. Alex Tatem, and other credentialed practitioners as educational context — to show researchers what clinicians and scientists are discussing publicly, not as citations for efficacy claims. These videos are labeled as featured educational content and attributed clearly. Viewers should evaluate them using the same evidence standards we apply to everything else on this platform: what does the peer-reviewed literature actually show?
Corrections
When we publish something that is factually incorrect, we correct it. Corrections are noted at the top of the relevant article with the date of correction and what changed.
If you believe something on this platform contains a factual error, contact us through the contact page with the specific claim, the URL where it appears, and the source you believe contradicts it. We review every substantive correction request.
We do not remove corrections after they are published — the correction record is part of the article's history.
Submit a correction →