Editorial policy
Independent evidence review, with the limits stated plainly
The Peptide Evidence Registry is an educational evidence resource. It is not a peptide vendor directory, a clinic, a regulator, a medical authority or a substitute for clinical care.
Editorial independence
- No peptide supplier, compounding pharmacy, clinic or manufacturer pays for inclusion, evidence ratings, claim verdicts or editorial placement.
- The Registry does not use peptide-supplier affiliate links, discount codes, paid rankings or sponsored evidence grades.
- Commercial availability is never treated as evidence of efficacy, safety, quality or regulatory approval.
- Evidence ratings can move up or down when better information appears, regardless of whether that change is commercially convenient to anyone.
Sister projects and conflicts
The Registry is created and edited by Colin Jackson-White, who also builds the separate fitness project My Gym Buddy. My Gym Buddy does not set Registry evidence ratings, claim verdicts or regulatory descriptions. Links between the projects identify that relationship rather than hiding it.
If a future financial, professional or personal relationship could reasonably be seen as relevant to a Registry entry, the aim is to disclose it rather than let readers discover it by accident.
Source hierarchy and evidence handling
- Primary research papers, trial registries, regulator documents and official study records are preferred over summaries, marketing pages and social-media claims.
- Human controlled evidence is kept separate from observational, animal, cell and mechanistic evidence.
- Sponsor-reported or conference-topline results are labelled as such until fuller peer-reviewed or regulatory documentation is available.
- A registered or announced trial is evidence that research is planned or underway; it is not evidence that a treatment works.
- The L0-L5 scale describes research maturity and strength of evidence, not whether a compound is safe, recommended or appropriate for an individual.
AI-assisted research
AI tools may assist with literature discovery, consistency checks, structured comparison and drafting. They are not treated as primary evidence and an AI-generated statement does not become a Registry fact simply because it sounds confident.
Material claims are intended to be grounded in traceable research, trial or regulator sources. Where a dynamic fact cannot be verified to an appropriate source, it should remain provisional, attributed or unpublished.
External review status
The Registry is currently an independently built, creator-edited project and does not present itself as having a formal medical or academic review board. External scientific, clinical and methodological review is a development goal, not a credential claimed in advance.
Relevant expert feedback can be used to improve an entry, but authority is not inferred from a job title alone: the underlying evidence and reasoning still need to be inspectable.
Corrections and changing evidence
- Material evidence changes are recorded in the public update log.
- Ratings and wording are expected to change when stronger evidence, contradictory evidence or regulatory decisions appear.
- A correction is not treated as a failure of the Registry model; refusing to correct a known error would be.
- Readers can submit claims or evidence for editorial review, but submission does not guarantee publication or a particular verdict.
Educational resource, not clinical authority
Policy last updated: 3 October 2026.