Search any peptide and you will find the same paragraph rewritten a hundred times: a confident summary of benefits, a mechanism stated as settled fact, and a dosing table. The tone does not change between a molecule with three Phase 3 trials and a molecule with one uncontrolled rodent study from 1994. That flattening is the single biggest failure of peptide information online, and it is what this library exists to correct.
Every profile carries a tier badge before you read anything else. The tier describes the strength of human evidence — nothing more. It is not a safety rating, not a recommendation, and not a ranking of how interesting the biology is. Some of the most scientifically fascinating molecules here sit at Tier 4 or 5 precisely because nobody has done the work.
We publish no dosing, reconstitution, administration, or cycling guidance for any peptide on this site — including the FDA-approved ones. Three reasons, in order of importance.
For unapproved substances, there is no honest number to publish. A dose implies a therapeutic window: an amount demonstrated to produce a defined benefit at acceptable risk in humans. For most peptides here that study has never been run. Numbers circulating online descend from forum consensus and vendor copy, not from trials. Printing them would manufacture the appearance of established practice where none exists — which is precisely the deception we built this library to avoid.
For approved drugs, dosing is clinical work. It is individualised, titrated, and monitored by a physician who can see the patient. A web page cannot do that and should not pretend to.
And the regulatory reality is unambiguous. In March and April 2026 the FDA issued a coordinated set of warning letters to online peptide sellers. Every one of those sites carried “research use only” and “not for human consumption” disclaimers. The FDA's position was that the disclaimers were irrelevant, because the surrounding page copy described human effects and use. The website content was the evidence that the products were unapproved new drugs. Any site that pairs a peptide with a protocol has, in the agency's reading, marketed a drug — whatever the footer says.
A disclaimer does not neutralise the page it sits on. We would rather publish less and have all of it be true.
Profiles are built from primary literature, FDA public records including the 503A bulk substances lists and advisory committee materials, clinical trial registries, and WADA's prohibited list. Regulatory status in this field moves quickly — BPC-157 has changed category twice since 2023 — so every profile carries a date and an instruction to verify independently. When we do not know something, the profile says so.