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.

Showing one linked claim.

Claim results

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.

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 →