About Peptides 101
A plain-English research library. The peptide world is full of big claims and thin sourcing — this site exists to do the opposite.
The peptide world is full of forum lore repeated until it sounds like fact, and marketing copy dressed up as science. Our job is the opposite: read the actual literature, explain it in normal language, and be honest about where the evidence stops.
How we write
Every article is built from primary sources — peer-reviewed papers, clinical trial registries, and regulatory documents — and each one links its sources at the bottom so you can check our work. We report what the science shows and what it doesn't. If the best available data is a rat study, we say it's a rat study. If a human trial failed, we say it failed.
We're also careful about a distinction the industry likes to blur: what a compound is being researched for is not the same as what it's proven to be used for. "Studied in animal models for tissue repair" and "repairs tissue in humans" are different sentences, and we don't swap one for the other.
Not approved for human use
The compounds discussed here are, with a few named exceptions, not approved for human use. Nothing on this site is medical advice, a treatment recommendation, or an endorsement of self-experimentation. Where our articles or tools show dose figures, those numbers are reported values from published studies or community protocols, included for reference and context — they are not recommendations, and we make no claim they are safe or effective.
Corrections
If we got something wrong — a citation, a number, a claim that overstates the evidence — tell us and we'll correct the article and note the change. Good research writing is supposed to survive being checked. Hold us to that.