This site exists because the two things available to a woman researching peptides are both bad: research papers she has no reason to be able to read, and beautifully designed pages that end at a consultation button. These are the rules we hold ourselves to in trying to be the thing in between.
1. We say what was studied, in whom, and what happened
Not what a compound “supports,” “optimises” or “may help with.” Those phrases exist to imply a result without claiming one. Instead we tell you the trial, the number of participants, the population, and the outcome — and where we can, we link the abstract so you can check us.
2. “Nobody has tested this” is a finding, and we publish it
The single most common honest answer in this field is that the study you would want does not exist. Most peptide content quietly skips past that. We say it out loud, every time, because it is usually the most decision-relevant fact on the page.
We distinguish carefully between human trials, animal studies, cell-culture work, observational associations and marketing. These are not interchangeable and treating them as if they were is how this entire category became untrustworthy.
3. We report whether women were studied at all
Across most of the compounds covered here, the published dosing protocols come from small trials in men. We consider that material information for a female reader and we state it on every page where it applies, including the participant numbers.
4. We name conflicts of interest, including our own
When a body of research is dominated by an author with a commercial interest in the outcome, we say so and let you weigh it. When a trial was funded by the company selling the ingredient, we say so. And we disclose our own affiliate relationships on every page they appear on. See our affiliate disclosure.
5. We correct on the page, not quietly
If we get something wrong, we fix it visibly and note what changed. We would rather look fallible than look consistent. If you find an error, tell us and we will check it against the source.
6. We do not invent people
We publish no testimonials attributed to made-up names, no stock-photo success stories, no before-and-after images we cannot verify, and no reviews we did not receive. Where we describe things we have observed personally, we say that it is personal observation and that it is not evidence.
7. We are not clinicians and this is not advice
Nothing here is medical advice, a diagnosis, or a treatment recommendation. We compare compounds, evidence, suppliers, testing and pricing. We do not tell anyone what to take, and we will not tell you to change or stop a medication your doctor prescribed you.
The compounds discussed on this site are sold by third parties as research materials and are not approved by the FDA for the uses discussed here.
Where we send people, and why
Where we do recommend a vendor, the criteria are published and boring: independent third-party testing, batch certificates of analysis linked to their source, shipping record, and price per milligram. Independent testing has found problems in roughly 30% of peptide vials on the market. That is the whole reason vendor selection gets a section on this site at all.