The Peptide Field
Menu

Public editorial standard · Version 1.2

How peptide fact checks work.

I write down the statement, check original records, and show what the evidence can and cannot support.

How I review

What a careful review can and cannot show.

A

Where I look for evidence

I search official FDA records and labels, ClinicalTrials.gov, original research indexed by PubMed, and World Anti-Doping Agency records when sport status matters. I record access dates. This is a structured editorial review, not a systematic review of every study.

B

What a source must cover

I need a source to cover the exact same molecule, product, and finished form. It must also cover the same route (how it enters the body), group of people, measured result, approval question, or evidence limit. Promotional pages and testimonials can tell me what claim to check. They cannot prove the claim.

C

What I check in each source

I check what the product is, the group studied, and how it was given. I then check the comparison group, the result measured, study length, completion, available results, and safety limits. I also check whether a source supports the claim, shows its limit, or supports a correction.

D

Bias and correction checks

I check funding, sponsor role, retractions, expressions of concern, and important corrections when the original record shows them. A retraction withdraws a paper. An expression of concern warns readers about a paper. If a source does not show these details, that does not prove there is no conflict or reporting limit.

E

Who reviews the pages

The site editor checks the sources. No second reviewer settles disagreements in the current process. A doctor or pharmacist has not independently medically reviewed this edition. Fact-check pages state this limit clearly.

Which sources I use

I start with original records.

I may use summaries to find a question. I use the original record to answer it when possible.

  1. Regulatory records and approved labelsApproval, indication, warnings, and official status
  2. Reviews of several studies and repeated human resultsWhat several studies show and whether the effect matters to people
  3. Individual human studiesStudy design, people studied, comparison, measured result, and limits
  4. Cell, animal, and mechanism researchIt can suggest an idea. It does not show a result in people.
  5. Testimonials and promotional claimsQuestions to investigate, not proof

Two separate questions

FDA approval and proof of benefit answer different questions.

FDA status tells us whether a specific product may be marketed for a defined use. Evidence strength tells us whether research supports a specific claim. One answer cannot replace the other.

Unapproved≠IneffectiveIt also does not mean proven, safe, or the same as another product.
Approved≠Effective for every useThe product, approved use, people studied, and measured result still matter.

How strong is the evidence?

Three evidence labels and what they mean.

EstablishedAn official agency review or strong, repeated studies in people support one clear use. That evidence applies only to the product, people, and use in the reviewed sources. It does not mean the product is safe or effective for everyone.
EmergingSome studies in people exist. Important questions remain about benefit, safety, who it helps, or how long the effects last. This is not an approval or recommendation.
InsufficientReliable studies in people are missing, too limited, or do not support the claim. This does not prove that the substance has no effect on the body.

Editorial independence

The ratings are not for sale.

This site has no peptide sales, paid placement, clinic referrals, or affiliate links. Read the independence page for conflicts and future disclosures.

This edition has not had independent medical review. The site does not imply medical oversight that has not happened.

Review and update policyCorrections policyIndependence and conflictsAbout and review statusCurrent FDA label manifest

Topic review

Each topic needs evidence and review.

  • Review dosing, preparation, and treatment questions by their evidence, not by banning a topic
  • Check practical information against the exact source and product, with warnings and uncertainty intact
  • Keep general education separate from personal diagnosis, prescriptions, and treatment decisions
  • Require editorial approval before publication; a disclaimer does not excuse an unsupported health claim