Who produces The Peptide Almanac
The Peptide Almanac is written and maintained by an in-house editorial team rather than a single named author. Our writers research the published scientific and regulatory literature and summarize it in plain English. We publish under a team identity because the work is collaborative and every guide is checked by more than one person against its sources before it goes live.
We are a publisher of educational reference material. We are not a clinic, pharmacy, or healthcare provider, and we do not know your medical history. Nothing here is a substitute for a qualified clinician who does. Always consult a healthcare professional before acting on anything you read.
How our review works — and what it isn't
We want to be precise about what "reviewed" means on The Peptide Almanac, because the word is often used loosely on health sites:
- What we do: every guide is researched and editorially fact-checked against the primary sources we cite. A second team member verifies that claims match the literature, that approval and legal status are stated correctly, and that uncertainty is not understated.
- What we do not claim: unless a page explicitly names a credentialed reviewer, our content has not been individually reviewed or endorsed by a licensed physician, pharmacist, or other named clinician. "Researched & fact-checked by the Peptide Almanac Editorial Team" means exactly that — an organizational, source-based check, not a personal medical sign-off.
- Citations are not endorsements. When we cite a researcher's or clinician's published study, that is a reference. It does not mean that author reviewed, approved, or is affiliated with The Peptide Almanac.
If we ever add a named medical reviewer, we will identify them by name and credential, link to their professional profile, and say clearly which pages they reviewed. We would rather under-claim our authority than overstate it.
Our evidence tiers
Peptides run from rigorously trialed prescription medicines to entirely unstudied "research chemicals." We grade and label that spectrum on every page, strongest evidence first, and never blur the lines between tiers:
- Tier 1 — Approved medicines. Backed by large randomized controlled trials and a named regulator (e.g. FDA) with an approved indication. We cite the pivotal trials and the regulatory record.
- Tier 2 — Investigational drugs. In formal clinical trials but not approved. We state the development stage and whether trials succeeded, failed, or are ongoing.
- Tier 3 — Early human / mixed evidence. Small or preliminary human studies, often without replication.
- Tier 4 — Preclinical / research chemicals. Evidence limited to cell or animal studies; human safety and efficacy are unproven. We say so plainly and flag the compound as a research chemical.
When evidence is weak, preliminary, or animal-only, we state that directly rather than implying more certainty than exists.
How we source and cite
Every guide links to real, primary records, and we label each source by type so you can weigh it:
- Peer-reviewed studies — overwhelmingly PubMed-indexed.
- Regulator records — FDA and equivalent agencies, for approval status and labeling.
- Reference texts — such as NCBI Bookshelf / StatPearls.
- Clinical-trial registries — e.g. ClinicalTrials.gov.
We verify that each citation links to the specific article or record it describes. We do not use search-query links or unverified identifiers, and we do not cite a source we have not opened.
What we deliberately do not publish
- No dosing protocols. Even where a study reports doses, we do not republish them as instructions — translating research doses into human use is unsafe and outside our remit.
- No sourcing or vendor guidance for unapproved compounds.
- No therapeutic claims beyond what the cited evidence supports.
Who paid for the research we cite
A study can be well conducted and still have been funded by a company with a stake in its result. That is extremely common in drug research, it is not misconduct, and reputable journals require it to be disclosed. But the disclosure usually sits at the bottom of a paper most readers never open.
Where a manufacturer funded or staffed a study that we lean on for a comparative claim, we say so on the page. Not as an accusation — funded research is often the only research that exists, particularly for newer drugs — but because you cannot weigh a finding properly without knowing who stood to gain from it. This matters most in categories where two manufacturers compete directly, and where the studies comparing their products were paid for by one of them.
We apply the same scepticism to ourselves. We take no money from peptide manufacturers, compounding pharmacies, telehealth prescribers, or supplement companies, and we do not accept sponsored content, paid placements, or "reviewed by" arrangements of any kind.
How to check us
Every claim of substance on this site links to the record behind it, and we would rather you verified than trusted us:
- Every citation is a direct permalink — a PubMed record, a DOI, an FDA application file, or a trial registry entry. Never a search link, never a bare identifier you would have to look up yourself.
- Approval dates come from the source of record. The dates in our FDA approval timeline were pulled programmatically from the FDA's own Drugs@FDA database, and every row links to the application file so you can open it.
- We re-check the links. Citations are re-validated against the source databases periodically, so dead or withdrawn records get caught rather than sitting there indefinitely.
- We say when evidence is thin. If a compound has almost no published literature, its guide will show only a handful of sources and say plainly that the evidence is limited. We would rather show you two honest citations than pad a page to look authoritative.
If you find something wrong — a broken link, a misread study, a stale approval status — tell us. Corrections are described below.
Review cadence & corrections
The science moves — new trials report, drugs gain or lose approval, regulations change. Each guide carries a "last updated" date reflecting its most recent fact-check, and we revise pages as the evidence does. If you believe a guide misrepresents a study or contains an error, email hello@thepeptidealmanac.com with the page and the source; we review every report and correct confirmed errors promptly.
Use of AI tools
We may use software tools, including AI, to assist with drafting and formatting. Regardless of the tools used, a human editor researches the sources, verifies every factual claim against them, and is accountable for what is published. We do not publish unverified machine-generated claims.
Editorial independence & funding
The Peptide Almanac is free to read and supported by advertising. We may add clearly-disclosed affiliate links in the future. Advertising and any future affiliate relationships never influence how we summarize the evidence — commercial and editorial decisions are kept strictly separate, and we do not sell peptides.