Public editorial standard · Version 1.1
Our job is not to sound certain. It is to show exactly how much certainty the evidence earns.
Review protocol
Reviews search official FDA records and labels, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed-indexed primary research, and WADA records where sport status is relevant. Source access dates are stored. The current edition is a structured editorial review, not a systematic review claiming exhaustive recall.
Sources must address the exact molecule, product, formulation, route, population, endpoint, regulatory question, or evidence boundary. Promotional pages and testimonials can define a claim to investigate but cannot establish its verdict.
The editor checks product identity, population, route, comparator, endpoint, duration, study completion, result availability, safety limits, and whether a source supports the scoped claim, defines an evidence limit, or supports a corrective verdict.
Funding, sponsor role, retractions, expressions of concern, and material corrections are checked when the primary record exposes them. Their absence from a source record is not proof that no conflict or reporting limitation exists.
Anthony Treviso is the responsible editor. The current process has no second-reviewer adjudication and has not been independently medically reviewed. Claim records identify that boundary instead of using an anonymous medical-authority label.
Non-negotiables
We write the claim in testable language. “Supports recovery” is too vague until the population, outcome, comparator, and time frame are clear.
We check FDA databases and current labels. An ingredient, compounded preparation, and approved drug product are not interchangeable.
Systematic reviews and replicated human outcomes outrank isolated trials, biomarker changes, animal work, mechanisms, and testimonials.
We ask what the research cannot support: different populations, routes, formulations, endpoints, durations, or safety conclusions.
Every reviewed brief exposes its primary sources and last review date so readers can check our work and spot staleness.
Source ladder
We may use secondary sources to find a question. We use primary records to answer it.
Two-axis review
Regulatory status answers whether a specific product has been reviewed and may be marketed for a defined indication. Evidence strength answers whether research supports a specific claim. Neither question can replace the other.
Evidence labels
Regulatory review or a strong, replicated human evidence base supports a clearly defined use.
Human research exists, but important questions about benefit, safety, population, or durability remain.
Reliable human evidence is missing, too limited, or does not support the claim being made.
Editorial independence
The scaffold carries no peptide sales, paid placement, clinic referrals, or affiliate links. If commercial relationships are introduced later, they must be disclosed and cannot influence conclusions, source selection, or evidence labels.
Corrections will identify what changed, why it changed, and the date. A material new approval, warning, withdrawal, or high-quality study triggers re-review.
The current edition has not been independently medically reviewed. We do not imply clinical oversight that has not occurred.
Medical boundary