01
Who is accountable
Anthony Treviso is the founder and responsible editor of The Peptide Field. He selects the sources, writes the claim wording, decides the corrections, and owns the process described on the standards and review-policy pages.
That names editorial accountability, not medical credentials. He is not a physician or pharmacist and is not presented as one.
No peptide seller, clinic, compounder, laboratory, or manufacturer funds or controls the current evidence record.
02
What the editorial work actually is
The process is published in full: the editorial standard (version 1.1) sets the search scope, inclusion rules, appraisal fields, and evidence labels, and the review and update policy (version 1.1) sets the re-review cadence and the triggers that force an immediate re-check.
Those pages describe what is done. This page names who does it. Nothing below is a claim of expertise beyond the work itself.
- Scopes every published claim to what its cited sources actually support, and records the verdict against that scope
- Checks regulatory status against current FDA records and product labels before a product claim is published
- Maintains the source ladder, the three evidence labels, and the per-claim source-role record
- Runs the scheduled re-review cadence and the immediate review triggers set out in the review policy
- Decides and publishes corrections, including the public corrections record
03
The clinical-review boundary
The current edition has not been independently medically reviewed. No physician or pharmacist is currently represented as an independent medical reviewer. Clinical review will be named with credentials, scope, date, and conflicts only after it occurs.
What has happened is editorial review by the person named above, working from the sources shown on each page. That is a real process, and it is not clinical oversight.
This site does not diagnose, treat, prescribe, or replace care from a qualified health professional. If qualified clinical review happens later, it will be named with the reviewer, credentials, scope, date, and conflicts.
04
How to challenge this work
Accountability without a route to contest it is decoration. If a claim, a source reading, a scope, a product identity, or a review date is wrong, say so at /corrections. It is the live intake and it is read by the responsible editor.
Point to the exact page and the exact sentence, and bring the better evidence with you. Material changes are published in a public corrections record rather than edited away quietly.