Comparison Centre
Two compounds, the same questions, no cherry-picking
Marketing compares compounds on whichever measure flatters them. This compares them on the same fields every time — including the awkward ones like how much human safety data exists. Every score here rates the evidence, not the compound: a higher number means stronger or more mature research, not that something is safer or works better.
Sharing keeps the two compounds you picked.
How to read these scores
Every number here rates the evidence, not the compound. They are editorial 0-100 strength ratings, not percentages, and not a rating out of five stars.
- Human efficacy evidence strength — Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
- Preclinical evidence strength — Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
- Human safety evidence strength — Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number. A score of 80 does not mean “80% safe”.
- Evidence level (L0-L5) — the strongest type of study behind the compound, from anecdote (L0) to large replicated human trials (L5). It is a description of the study evidence, not a quality, safety or recommendation rating.
- Confidence — how likely we think it is that this rating changes as new research lands. Low confidence means the picture is unsettled, not that the compound is bad.
None of these ratings is medical advice, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use anything. How we grade evidence.
LL-37
A human antimicrobial peptide studied topically for wound healing, now marketed for unrelated systemic uses.
KPV
A three-amino-acid fragment of alpha-MSH marketed for gut healing and inflammation, with no human clinical studies identified by the FDA.
How far human research has progressed
LL-37
Phase II/IIb topical wound studies completed; primary outcome not met in the larger studyKPV
Preclinical only; no human studies identifiedHuman efficacy evidence strength
Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
LL-37
KPV
Preclinical (animal / lab) evidence strength
Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
LL-37
KPV
Human safety evidence strength
Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.
LL-37
KPV
Regulatory status (legal position, not proof it works)
LL-37
Not an approved medicine. Its clinical study history is topical, in hard-to-heal wounds. Injectable or systemic use for infections, 'immune reset' or biohacking purposes is unstudied. Compounding-nomination status has changed during 2026 and should be read cautiously.KPV
No FDA-approved product exists. FDA material published for the 2026 compounding review states that the FDA identified no clinical studies or human exposure data for KPV via any route, and that human safety risks are unknown.Common claims
LL-37
- · Heals chronic wounds
- · Treats resistant infections
- · Resets or boosts the immune system when injected
KPV
- · Heals the gut lining in IBD and leaky gut
- · Reduces systemic inflammation
How settled our evidence rating is
LL-37
KPV
Cancer-related questions raised by the biology
These are theoretical or monitored questions raised by how a compound works. They are not evidence that it causes cancer.
LL-37
Laboratory work reports both tumour-promoting and tumour-suppressing effects depending on tissue. Nothing is established in humans; the honest position is unresolved.KPV
No data in humans either way; unstudied.What this adds up to, in plain English
LL-37
There is some early human signal, but it is far weaker than the broad claims made about it online.KPV
This sits in theory and anecdote. Popular claims about it should be treated with very low confidence.A comparison is not a recommendation