Editorial Policy

Where the numbers came from

We think you should know exactly how this was built, because it changes how much weight the figures deserve.

The dose ranges and the citations were assembled by an AI system from its training knowledge of the published peptide literature. They were not compiled by researching each compound one at a time, and the individual citations have not been checked against the source records. Author names, journals and years may contain errors.

That is also why every reference on this site links to a PubMed search rather than a specific article ID. A search will take you to the real record if the paper exists. A fabricated ID would look authoritative and lead nowhere, which is worse than no link at all.

Three parts of the site do not come from that process:

• Product compositions — vial strengths, blend ratios and what we stock come from us directly.
• Blend arithmetic — the per-component splits are calculated from those compositions, so they are exact.
• The "Newest Studies" panel — queried live from Europe PMC each time you open a compound. Those are real, current records, and nobody has reviewed them.

What this means in practice: treat the ranges as a well-informed starting point for your own reading, not as a verified bibliography. Follow the links. If a number matters to a decision you are making, check it at the source.

How we grade evidence

Every compound carries an evidence tier, and we would rather show you a weak one honestly than dress it up:

Week-by-week schedules carry their own label so you can see where each one originated — a published label, a clinical trial protocol, a commonly used protocol, one we built from a compound's own cited range, or an OptimalDosages protocol anchored to a target we chose. Where no source publishes a schedule, the page says so rather than implying one exists.

What we don't do

• We don't change dose figures automatically. New papers appear in the live feed, but ranges, schedules and evidence tiers only change after a person reviews the evidence.
• We don't convert weight-based figures into draw volumes. Where a dose was reported as mg/kg, the calculator refuses to turn it into a syringe reading and says why.
• We don't rewrite citation titles. If a paper studied a different molecule or a different route, its description says so, even where that sits awkwardly next to the product.
• We don't present community convention as trial data. Protocols with no published basis are labelled as such.

Updates and corrections

A literature check runs weekly against Europe PMC, rotating through the catalogue so every compound is reviewed roughly monthly. It flags new human trials, dose findings, safety signals and retractions of papers we cite. It reports only — it cannot edit the site.

If you find an error, tell us and we will fix it. Corrections to dose figures or evidence tiers are made in place, and the build identifier in the footer changes whenever the site does, so you can tell whether you are looking at a current version.

Commercial interests

Amazon. The “Buy Research Equipment” buttons on this site are Amazon affiliate links. If you buy through one, we receive a small commission from Amazon at no extra cost to you. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Those links point to general laboratory supplies — syringes, swabs, sharps disposal — and nothing about which products appear is influenced by payment from a manufacturer.

Suppliers. The “Buy Peptides” buttons link to optimal-pep.com. Assume a commercial relationship between that store and this site, and weigh the dosing figures here accordingly. No compound was added to this library because it was profitable to list, and no supplier pays for placement or for favourable treatment in the dose ranges.