Primary entity: Evidence evaluation policy · Related: Editorial policy · Corrections · About · Disclaimers
We rank every statement by the strongest publicly checkable source behind it — regulator documents and labels, then peer-reviewed human studies, down through animal and cell work — and we say when the support is thin or missing. The author is an independent writer, not a clinician, and no clinical reviewer checks these pages (why that matters). That's why sourcing, dates, and public corrections carry the weight here.
Key takeaways
- Ladder: cell → animal → human (observational, then trials) → regulator-approved label.
- Anecdotes, vendor copy, and AI chat answers are not evidence tiers.
- "Studied for" ≠ "proven to treat" ≠ "approved for."
- Missing human data is stated plainly.
- No clinician has reviewed these pages; every key claim links a primary source so you can check it yourself.
- Mistakes get fixed in public.
Questions this page answers
- Why have an evidence policy?
- The evidence ladder
- Language we use vs avoid
- Primary sources we prefer
- Regulatory status vs scientific evidence
- Corrections and updates
- Who this policy is for
Who this policy is for
For: readers who want to know how wording gets decided on health-adjacent topics, and anyone comparing our pages with forum threads or AI chatbot answers.
Not for: requests to "upgrade" a compound's tier based on testimonials.
Why have an evidence policy?
Peptide search results and chatbot answers often cite secondary blogs as if they were trials, invent dosages, blur approved drugs with research-use-only powders, and treat animal healing models as clinical proof. A written rubric keeps this site from doing the same — and lets you check our work.
The evidence ladder
| Tier | What it usually means | How we talk about it |
|---|---|---|
| Approved label / regulator document | Regulator-approved labeling or an official notice | Highest authority for that product's labeled use or for legal status |
| Human — trials | Controlled interventional studies | Describe phase and size when known; avoid "miracle" |
| Human — early | Case series, small uncontrolled reports | "Limited human reports…" |
| Animal / preclinical | In vivo non-human work | "In animals…" — not human proof |
| Cell / in vitro | Dish or culture systems | "In cell studies…" — hypothesis-generating |
| Anecdote / forum / vendor | Unverified personal or commercial claims | Not proof; may appear only to explain a myth |
Profiles often include an evidence snapshot table using these tags.
Language we use vs avoid
| Prefer | Avoid |
|---|---|
| "Has been studied in animals for…" | "Cures," "proven healing," "miracle" |
| "FDA-approved for [labeled indication] as [brand]" | "The research peptide Ozempic" |
| "Human evidence is thin / absent" | False certainty to fill a keyword |
| "We don't publish dosing protocols" | Consumer mcg/day charts for unapproved compounds |
Primary sources we prefer
- FDA labels (DailyMed), FDA/HHS notices, Federal Register, EMA product information where relevant
- Peer-reviewed literature (PMID/DOI)
- ClinicalTrials.gov registrations and results
- WADA and other sport-body documents for status tools
- Pharmacopeial text (USP) for sterile-prep concepts
AI chat answers, anonymous PDFs, and vendor pages aren't cited as evidence. The full sourcing hierarchy is in the editorial policy.
Regulatory status vs scientific evidence
A compound can have interesting papers and still be unapproved, restricted for compounding, or illegal to market for human use. An approved drug's off-label use is a clinical decision, not something we protocolize. Status sentences are dated snapshots with a "last checked" date where we've verified one — see our compounding status guide for an example of how fast they can move.
Corrections and updates
- Material changes to a page are logged on Corrections with a date and reason.
- Regulatory statements are re-checked when the source changes and at least every 90 days (cadence).
- No one can pay to change an evidence tier or a ranking.
Frequently asked questions
Does "human trial" always mean it's safe for me?
No. Trials have eligibility criteria, monitored settings, and specific products. Literacy isn't personal clearance — ask a licensed clinician.
Why mention animal data at all?
Readers meet it constantly. We contextualize it so it isn't mistaken for clinical proof.
Does someone with medical credentials check your wording?
No. There is no clinical reviewer. That's stated on About, and it's why we link the primary source for each key claim.
Will you rate vendors' certificates of analysis?
No. We may explain what a COA is as lab literacy, without endorsing sellers.
Sources
- FDA. DailyMed — drug labeling.
- Peptide Tutorials. Editorial policy; Corrections; About.
Evidence policy for educational publishing. Not medical advice. Full disclaimers.