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.
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.