External challenge
Choose a compound. Challenge the assessment.
The Registry is more useful when people try to prove it wrong. Pick one compound, one claim or one evidence grade and stress-test it against the underlying research.
What we are asking reviewers to do
You do not need to review the entire Registry. A focused challenge is more useful: choose one assessment and look for evidence, context or wording that could materially change it.
- Find relevant primary evidence the Registry has missed.
- Check whether animal, cell or mechanistic findings have been kept separate from human outcomes.
- Challenge an evidence level that looks too strong or too cautious.
- Check trial status, regulatory wording, dates and source provenance.
- Flag wording that could cause a careful reader to infer more than the evidence supports.
- Report broken links, confusing navigation or accessibility problems that make the evidence harder to inspect.
How the evidence system works
The Registry uses an L0-L5 evidence hierarchy, from unsupported or anecdotal claims through laboratory, animal and progressively stronger human outcome evidence. Human efficacy, preclinical evidence, safety, regulatory status and clinical development are not treated as interchangeable signals.
A plausible mechanism does not become a human benefit. A trial registration does not become a positive result. A sponsor announcement does not silently become a peer-reviewed paper. Those boundaries are deliberately conservative and are exactly the sort of thing we want reviewers to challenge.
Worked example: SLU-PP-332
SLU-PP-332 is often described as an “exercise mimetic”. The Registry keeps it at the preclinical boundary because the outcome evidence is laboratory and animal evidence, not human intervention evidence.
Human-derived muscle cells and human liver fractions can add useful mechanistic or analytical information, but they do not show that people taking the compound gain exercise performance, fat-loss, cardiovascular or safety benefits. The challenge is not whether interesting research exists; it is whether the public wording accurately reflects what that research can establish.
The test
What happens if you find an error
- The source or claim is re-checked rather than defended by default.
- Material evidence changes are reviewed against the same published methodology.
- Where an assessment is wrong or materially incomplete, it is corrected.
- Material revisions can be reflected in the Registry's public evidence-update history.
- Disagreement is not treated as endorsement: criticism is useful even when the final assessment does not change.
Independence and reviewer attribution
- No peptide supplier, clinic or manufacturer can buy an evidence grade or favourable claim verdict.
- The Registry does not link to peptide suppliers or use peptide-vendor affiliate arrangements.
- A reviewer is never presented as endorsing the Registry simply because they sent feedback or correspondence.
- A person's name is shown as a reviewer only with explicit agreement and only for the exact scope they reviewed.
- A critical review, correction or failed challenge is valuable evidence about the quality-control process and is not hidden because it is inconvenient.
Stress-test the Registry
Found something we should investigate?
Send the exact claim, compound, source or problem you found. A specific challenge is much more useful than a general opinion of the site.
Challenge an assessmentEducational content only