Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

Claim Checker

Somebody said it confidently. Is it true?

A curated library of the claims that actually circulate — in forums, in reels, in supplement copy — each with a verdict, the evidence level behind it and the reasoning laid out. Editorial content, written by a human, not generated on the fly.

How to read a verdict. A verdict grades that specific sentence — not the compound as a whole, and not whether it is safe or advisable. The evidence level next to it tells you what kind of studies the verdict rests on. So the same compound can carry a supported claim and a misleading one at the same time — the verdict belongs to the sentence, not to the compound, and never says whether using it is a good idea.

35 claims

Claim results

Claim verdict

Longevity

Not supported as wordedL2Animal / lab studies

“FOXO4-DRI has been proven to reverse ageing in humans.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Unsupported: improvements in mouse ageing models are not evidence of human rejuvenation.

Why this verdict

  • The key 2017 study tested senescent cells in culture and outcomes in aged or progeroid mice.
  • No qualifying human FOXO4-DRI clinical outcome trial demonstrates reversal of ageing or longer lifespan.
  • The existence of a senolytic mechanism does not establish a safe human treatment.

Claim evidence map

Sources are mapped to this exact claim. Appearance here does not mean every source supports it.

1 mapped source

Claim verdict

Senolytics

Partly supportedL2Animal / lab studies

“FOXO4-DRI selectively kills senescent cells.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Supported in selected experimental cell systems, not established in people.

Why this verdict

  • The original study observed FOXO4-p53 interference and senescent-cell apoptosis in cultured cells.
  • Mouse experiments provide additional preclinical support, but human tissue selectivity and clinical benefit remain untested.
  • The wording is misleading if it implies a proven human intervention.

Claim evidence map

Sources are mapped to this exact claim. Appearance here does not mean every source supports it.

1 mapped source

Claim verdict

Longevity

Not supported as wordedL2Animal / lab studies

“FOXO4-DRI restores kidney function and fitness in humans.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Unsupported for humans: reported renal and fitness-related improvements came from mouse models.

Why this verdict

  • The original research reported selected renal and functional outcomes in aged and progeroid mice.
  • Human clinical benefits, effective administration and safety have not been established.

Claim evidence map

Sources are mapped to this exact claim. Appearance here does not mean every source supports it.

1 mapped source

Claim verdict

Tissue repair

Not supported as wordedL2Animal / lab studies

“BPC-157 heals tendons in humans.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Unsupported as stated — the human trials simply don't exist.

Why this verdict

  • The tendon-healing story comes almost entirely from rodent models (Level 2).
  • No adequately powered published randomised controlled trial in humans supports it.
  • 'Unsupported' means we don't know it works — not that we know it fails. Those are different claims and the difference matters.

Claim evidence map

Sources are mapped to this exact claim. Appearance here does not mean every source supports it.

2 mapped sources

Claim verdict

GLP-1s

MisleadingL4Good human trials

“If my GLP-1 stops suppressing appetite, it has stopped working.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — appetite suppression is a sensation, not the mechanism of benefit.

Why this verdict

  • Early strong nausea and appetite suppression often fade as the body adapts, while metabolic and glycaemic effects continue.
  • Weight trajectory, glycaemic markers and clinical measures are the outcomes that matter, not how loudly you notice the drug.
  • Plateaus have many causes — energy balance shifts, adaptation, adherence — and self-escalating a dose to chase a feeling is exactly the behaviour clinicians warn about.

Claim verdict

Research literacy

MisleadingL1Theory only

“Natural peptides are automatically safe.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — 'natural' describes origin, not safety.

Why this verdict

  • Insulin is natural and can kill you at the wrong dose. Botulinum toxin is natural too.
  • Dose, route, duration and purity determine risk far more than whether a molecule appears somewhere in biology.
  • Most peptides sold outside medical supply have no human safety dataset at all, natural-sounding or otherwise.
Last reviewed 2026-06-30

Claim verdict

Research literacy

MisleadingL1Theory only

“There are lots of studies, so it must work.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — study count is not evidence quality.

Why this verdict

  • Two hundred rodent papers from overlapping research groups is weaker evidence than one well-run randomised human trial.
  • What matters: study design, sample size, blinding, independent replication and whether the endpoint is clinically meaningful.
  • A tall stack of Level 1-2 evidence never adds up to Level 4. Evidence levels aren't cumulative points.
Last reviewed 2026-06-30

Claim verdict

Cancer context

MisleadingL1Theory only

“If a pathway promotes angiogenesis it means the peptide causes cancer.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — a mechanistic concern is not a demonstrated human risk.

Why this verdict

  • Angiogenesis is normal physiology: wound healing, exercise adaptation and menstrual cycles all depend on it.
  • Tumours exploit angiogenesis, so promoting it is a legitimate theoretical concern worth naming — particularly for anyone with a cancer history.
  • No human data show that BPC-157, TB-500 or similar compounds cause cancer. Equally, no human data establish they are safe in people with cancer. The honest answer is 'unstudied', and that is a reason for caution, not a reassurance.
Last reviewed 2026-07-10

Claim verdict

GLP-1s

Partly supportedL4Good human trials

“Retatrutide produces more weight loss than currently approved GLP-1 medicines.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Partly supported — the trial numbers are striking, but it isn't approved and long-term data are pending.

Why this verdict

  • Randomised mid-stage human trials reported large dose-dependent weight reduction.
  • Cross-trial comparisons are not head-to-head evidence; populations and protocols differ.
  • Efficacy confidence is high; long-term safety confidence is not, because those data don't exist yet.

Claim verdict

Mitochondria

MisleadingL3Early human studies

“Elamipretide is an approved anti-ageing therapy.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — it holds a narrow accelerated approval for a rare genetic disease.

Why this verdict

  • Approval for Barth syndrome does not extend to healthy ageing, performance or general mitochondrial 'optimisation'.
  • Trials in broader indications have produced mixed or unsuccessful results.
  • Reading a rare-disease approval as an anti-ageing endorsement is one of the most common errors in this space.

Claim verdict

Longevity

Promising but unprovenL2Animal / lab studies

“MOTS-c is a proven longevity therapy.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Promising but unproven — great biology, missing trials.

Why this verdict

  • Human observational work links circulating MOTS-c with fitness and metabolic status.
  • Rodent studies show metabolic improvements, but no randomised human trial of administration exists.
  • 'Promising' is a compliment about the science, not a recommendation to inject it.

Claim verdict

Skin & hair

Not supported as wordedL3Early human studies

“GHK-Cu injections give you the same benefits as the skincare studies.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Unsupported — topical evidence does not transfer to systemic dosing.

Why this verdict

  • The human evidence is for topical cosmetic formulations with local skin endpoints.
  • Injecting a copper-carrying peptide is a fundamentally different exposure with different risks, including copper balance.
  • No controlled human trials support systemic injectable use.

Claim verdict

GLP-1s

Supported by evidenceL5Repeated human trials

“Semaglutide reduces cardiovascular events in higher-risk people.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Supported — within the specific populations studied.

Why this verdict

  • Dedicated cardiovascular outcome trials in defined higher-risk populations support this.
  • 'Supported' here is population-specific; it is not a promise of benefit for everyone who takes it.
  • This is what Level 5 evidence looks like, for contrast with most of this registry.

Claim verdict

Longevity

Not supported as wordedL1Theory only

“Epitalon extends human lifespan.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Unsupported — human lifespan extension has never been demonstrated for any peptide.

Why this verdict

  • The supporting literature is old, narrow and largely unreplicated independently.
  • Telomerase activation in cell culture is mechanistic evidence, not a lifespan outcome.
  • Human lifespan trials are extraordinarily hard to run, which is precisely why nobody should claim to have won one.

Claim verdict

Growth hormone axis

Not supported as wordedL3Early human studies

“Peptides that raise growth hormone will build muscle in healthy adults.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Unsupported as stated — raising a hormone is a surrogate endpoint, not a result.

Why this verdict

  • Early studies confirm GH and IGF-1 rise; that was never the hard part.
  • No controlled trials show meaningful muscle or performance gains in healthy adults from GHRH analogues or secretagogues.
  • Water retention and scale weight changes are frequently mistaken for tissue gain.

Claim verdict

Safety

Not supported as wordedL1Theory only

“Research-grade peptides are the same as pharmaceutical-grade medicines.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Unsupported — 'research use only' is a legal category, not a quality guarantee.

Why this verdict

  • Unapproved supply chains have documented problems with purity, sterility, mislabelled content and dose accuracy.
  • A certificate of analysis supplied by the seller is not independent verification.
  • This risk is separate from — and often larger than — the pharmacology of the molecule itself.

Claim verdict

Safety

MisleadingL1Theory only

“Nobody has reported serious harm, so it must be safe.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — absence of reported harm is not evidence of safety.

Why this verdict

  • Unapproved compounds have no systematic adverse-event reporting system behind them.
  • Harms that are delayed, rare or non-obvious are exactly the ones anecdote misses.
  • Silence in a forum is not a safety dataset.
Last reviewed 2026-06-30

Claim verdict

GLP-1s

Supported by evidenceL5Repeated human trials

“Tirzepatide improves obstructive sleep apnoea in people with obesity.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Supported — in the randomised trial populations studied.

Why this verdict

  • Dedicated randomised trials reported reduced apnoea severity.
  • Effects are tied to the studied populations and treatment durations.
  • This is a good example of a claim moving from 'promising' to 'supported' because someone ran the trial.

Claim verdict

Tissue repair

Partly supportedL2Animal / lab studies

“TB-500 and thymosin beta-4 are the same thing.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Partly supported — related, but not interchangeable, and marketing blurs it deliberately.

Why this verdict

  • Thymosin beta-4 is the full naturally occurring protein with a genuine research history.
  • 'TB-500' typically denotes a shorter synthetic fragment sold as a research chemical.
  • Citing thymosin beta-4 clinical work to sell TB-500 for tendon repair is a category error.

Claim verdict

Melanocortin

MisleadingL5Repeated human trials

“PT-141 / bremelanotide is an approved sexual-performance enhancer for everyone.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — the approval is deliberately narrow.

Why this verdict

  • Vyleesi (bremelanotide) is FDA-approved for acquired, generalised hypoactive sexual desire disorder in premenopausal women — a specific diagnosis, not a performance claim.
  • It is not approved for men, for postmenopausal women, or for general sexual enhancement.
  • Products marketed as 'PT-141' outside that indication are unapproved uses of a research-market product.

Claim verdict

Melanocortin

MisleadingL2Animal / lab studies

“Melanotan II is basically the same approved medicine as afamelanotide.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — related chemistry, completely different regulatory reality.

Why this verdict

  • Afamelanotide (Scenesse) completed a full development programme and is approved for one rare disease, erythropoietic protoporphyria, as a clinician-administered implant.
  • Melanotan II has no approval anywhere and sits on the FDA's 503A Category 2 list of substances with identified significant safety risks for compounding.
  • Saying 'it's basically the approved one' erases the entire difference between a finished trial programme and an abandoned one.

Claim verdict

Neuro & cognitive

MisleadingL2Animal / lab studies

“Semax is FDA-approved as a nootropic nasal spray.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — it is not FDA-approved at all.

Why this verdict

  • FDA material notes Semax is registered in Russia as nasal drops; that is a foreign national registration, not FDA approval.
  • Intranasal and injectable Semax products marketed in the US are unapproved, and the FDA placed Semax on its 503A Category 2 list of substances presenting significant safety risks for compounding.
  • Category 2 means identified significant safety risk for compounding — not that 'the FDA banned it', and not approval either.

Claim verdict

Gut & immune

Not supported as wordedL1Theory only

“KPV has human clinical evidence for gut healing.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Unsupported — the FDA identified no human studies at all.

Why this verdict

  • FDA material for the 2026 compounding review states that no clinical studies or human exposure data for KPV were identified via any route.
  • The gut-healing story rests on cell and animal work — Level 1-2 evidence.
  • Human safety risks are unknown, which is a warning, not a technicality.

Claim evidence map

Sources are mapped to this exact claim. Appearance here does not mean every source supports it.

1 mapped source

Claim verdict

Metabolic

MisleadingL4Good human trials

“Setmelanotide is another general-purpose weight-loss GLP-1.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — wrong mechanism, wrong population.

Why this verdict

  • Setmelanotide is a melanocortin-4 receptor agonist, not a GLP-1; the drug class is different.
  • Its approval covers obesity due to specific genetically defined syndromes (such as POMC, PCSK1 or LEPR deficiency and Bardet-Biedl syndrome), confirmed by genetic testing.
  • It is not indicated for, and has not been shown to work as, a general obesity treatment.

Claim verdict

Routes & formulations

MisleadingL5Repeated human trials

“Peptides can't be taken orally — stomach acid destroys them all.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — approved oral peptide medicines exist.

Why this verdict

  • Linaclotide and plecanatide are orally administered peptide medicines, FDA-approved for constipation indications, that act locally on the gut lining with minimal systemic absorption.
  • Oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) reaches the bloodstream using an absorption-enhancer formulation — oral systemic peptide delivery is difficult, not impossible.
  • The reverse error matters too: an oral formulation existing for one peptide says nothing about whether some other peptide works orally.

Claim verdict

Routes & formulations

MisleadingL3Early human studies

“Oxytocin nasal sprays sold online carry the same evidence as medical Pitocin.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — the approved evidence belongs to IV/IM obstetric use only.

Why this verdict

  • Approved oxytocin (Pitocin) evidence covers supervised IV infusion and IM injection for specific obstetric indications such as labour induction and postpartum bleeding control.
  • Intranasal oxytocin behavioural research is small and inconsistent, and research-market nasal sprays are unapproved products of unknown purity.
  • Evidence is route- and indication-specific: IV obstetric data does not validate wellness nasal-spray claims.

Claim verdict

GLP-1s & incretins

MisleadingL5Repeated human trials

“All GLP-1 peptide drugs are weekly injections.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — the class spans different schedules and even routes.

Why this verdict

  • Exenatide and lixisenatide are approved GLP-1 medicines with more frequent injection schedules than the weekly agents.
  • Oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) is an approved daily tablet, while injectable semaglutide is weekly — the same molecule in different formulations.
  • Schedules and routes vary by product and formulation; this registry provides no dosing instructions, but the 'all weekly injections' shortcut is factually wrong.

Claim verdict

Routes & formulations

MisleadingL5Repeated human trials

“If a peptide comes as a nasal spray, it must be an experimental research chemical.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — several fully approved medicines are nasal peptides.

Why this verdict

  • Nafarelin (Synarel) has been an approved nasal-spray medicine for decades, nasal glucagon (Baqsimi) is an approved rescue treatment for severe hypoglycaemia, and nasal desmopressin and salmon calcitonin products have held approvals for defined indications.
  • Route tells you nothing about evidence on its own; what matters is whether a regulated development programme exists behind the product.
  • The reverse heuristic is equally wrong: an injectable research peptide is not 'more medical' than an approved nasal one.
Last reviewed 2026-08-23

Claim verdict

Blends & marketed mixtures

Not supported as wordedL1Theory only

“KLOW and Wolverine combine several peptides, so a blend has the combined proven benefits of all its ingredients.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Unsupported as worded — no controlled human evidence exists for these marketed mixtures as combinations.

Why this verdict

  • KLOW and Wolverine are seller-defined nicknames, not standard formulations: the ingredient list, ratios and material quality vary between vendors and batches, so there is no single product for evidence to attach to.
  • Even where an individual ingredient has some human or laboratory data, that evidence belongs to the compound studied at the route and formulation studied. It is not transferable to a combined vial, and effects in combination can differ from effects alone.
  • No blend-specific controlled human evidence identified in the curated record for these marketed mixtures, so 'combined proven benefits' has nothing behind it. That is an absence of evidence, not proof of harm or of failure.
Last reviewed 2026-09-16

Claim verdict

Tissue repair

MisleadingL3Early human studies

“A new human study found BPC-157 worked for 79% of patients.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — 79% describes a selected subgroup with a recorded response, not all documented users.

Why this verdict

  • The figure is 279 of the 354 patients whose clinical notes contained an ascertainable directional response, not 79% of all 1,039 documented BPC-157 users; 685 had no ascertainable directional response.
  • The preprint was retrospective and observational, most outcomes were patient-reported, product identity and dosing were not standardised, and co-treatments were common — including TB-500 in 12.9% of users.
  • With no control group, the study cannot establish that BPC-157 caused improvement or that a marketed Wolverine blend works.

Claim verdict

Experimental pipeline

Not supported as wordedL2Animal / lab studies

“VRX-0075 is more powerful than retatrutide in humans.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Unsupported as worded — the only comparison is in rats.

Why this verdict

  • The comparison people are quoting comes from a 2026 conference abstract describing a rodent obesity model, not a human study.
  • No human has been given VRX-0075 in our curated record, so there is no human efficacy, tolerability or safety data to compare with retatrutide's Phase 3 results.
  • Animal weight change routinely fails to predict human weight change, dosing, or tolerability. Many compounds that outperformed a comparator in rodents did not do so in people.
  • Unsupported here means the evidence needed does not exist yet — not that the molecule has been shown to be worse.

Claim verdict

Experimental pipeline

MisleadingL2Animal / lab studies

“VRX-0075 is GLP-5.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading terminology — 'GLP-5' is informal shorthand, not a receptor or a drug class.

Why this verdict

  • There is no GLP-5 receptor. GLP-1 and GLP-2 are named peptides with named receptors; 'GLP-3', 'GLP-4' and 'GLP-5' do not exist in receptor pharmacology.
  • Online, 'GLP-5' is community shorthand for 'five targets'. VRX-0075 is reported to engage the GLP-1, GIP, glucagon, amylin and calcitonin receptors — that is five receptors, not a fifth GLP molecule.
  • Counting targets is not a measure of strength or benefit. More receptor activity also means more ways to cause unwanted effects, none of which has been characterised in people.
  • We list the actual receptor targets on each profile for this reason, and never use GLP-3/4/5 style labels as scientific classification.

Claim verdict

Experimental pipeline

Not supported as wordedL2Animal / lab studies

“VRX-0075 has a secret alias because Eli Lilly is suppressing it.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Unsupported — a research-support disclosure is not evidence of suppression or renaming.

Why this verdict

  • Disclosing that a company provided research support is standard scientific practice and is required by journals and conferences. It is the opposite of concealment.
  • The informal 'GLP-5' nickname originated in online discussion, not in a corporate renaming exercise.
  • Nothing in our curated record documents suppression, withdrawal or renaming of this molecule by any company.
  • The real limitation is much simpler and less dramatic: preclinical work, no human trial, and therefore nothing established about people.

Claim verdict

Molecule legitimacy vs product authenticity

MisleadingL1Theory only

“IGF-1 LR3 is a real, documented molecule, so a vial sold online is the real thing.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — the molecule being real says nothing about what is in the vial.

Why this verdict

  • Two separate questions get collapsed into one. Native human IGF-1 is a legitimate 70-amino-acid polypeptide hormone, pharmaceutical recombinant IGF-1 exists as the approved medicine mecasermin, and Long R3 IGF-1, R3 IGF-1 and DES(1-3) IGF-1 are documented analogues with published recombinant production and measurable IGF-1 receptor activity in the laboratory.
  • None of those modified analogues is an approved human medicine, and none of that literature was produced using grey-market material.
  • Whether a supplied vial contains the stated molecule cannot be read off the label, the name or a seller-supplied certificate. It requires analysis of that material.
  • Identity and purity can be addressed by mass spectrometry, sequencing or intact-mass confirmation. Correct folding and disulfide pairing, labelled quantity and biological activity are further separate questions — an HPLC purity figure alone does not show a correctly folded, active protein.

Claim verdict

Emerging & adjacent molecules

MisleadingL2Animal / lab studies

“SLU-PP-915 is exercise in a capsule — the studies show it delivers the benefits of training.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — the studies are in mice, and it is not a peptide either.

Why this verdict

  • The 2026 pharmacology paper reports increased running distance and duration in mice given an orally active ERR pan-agonist, plus induction of exercise-responsive genes. That is a rodent result.
  • No human study of SLU-PP-915 was identified in our curated record — no efficacy trial, no safety dataset, no approved use.
  • Reproducing part of a transcriptional programme that exercise switches on is not the same as reproducing what training does to a person.
  • It is also a small molecule, not a peptide, despite where it is being marketed and discussed.

What the verdicts mean

Supported by evidence
Good human evidence supports the claim as worded, within the populations studied.
Partly supported
There's something real here, but the claim overreaches or blurs a distinction.
Promising but unproven
Plausible mechanism and early data, no controlled human evidence yet.
Not supported as worded
The evidence needed to support this simply doesn't exist. Not the same as disproven.
Misleading
Technically-adjacent to something true, but framed in a way that misleads.
Submit a claim for review →