Who reviews this, and how
Peptide information online is overwhelmingly produced by people who sell peptides. pepteyes.com is structured to remove that incentive: no store, no vendor sponsorship, no supplier links — and a review process that treats "no human evidence" as a finding worth publishing prominently.
Who writes this, and who has not yet reviewed it
Everything on pepteyes.com is researched, written and fact-checked in-house by The pepteyes.com editorial desk, against primary literature and current regulator records. No clinician has countersigned it. Rather than fill this page with names to look established, the seats below are published as what they are — open. Until one holds a named, consenting, credentialed person who has genuinely read the pages assigned to them, this site does not claim clinical review, and you should weigh what you read here accordingly.
Would review incretin, growth-hormone-axis and hormonal monographs, and sign off the evidence ratings in those categories.
Would verify mechanism, pharmacokinetics and interaction content, and check regulatory-status claims against current FDA and EMA records.
Would review tendon, muscle and recovery monographs, and the anti-doping status of every compound listed.
Would review topical and melanocortin peptides, including pigmentation safety and melanoma-risk content.
Would own the 1–5 evidence scale, audit trial citations, and rule on whether a claim rests on human data or preclinical extrapolation.
If you hold one of these credentials and would consider reviewing. This is paid, named work with a defined scope — you would review specific pages, your name and the review date would appear on them, and you could decline to sign anything you disagreed with. The site sells nothing and takes no vendor money, so there is no commercial pressure on a finding.
Get in touch about a review roleHow we handle being wrong, and who pays for this
| What we correct | Any factual error, superseded regulatory status, or evidence rating that no longer matches the literature. Silent edits are not corrections — a substantive change is noted on the page. |
|---|---|
| How to report one | Tell us what is wrong and what it should say, with the source. We would rather be corrected by a reader than repeat an error. |
| Review cycle | Regulatory status is the fastest-moving thing here and is re-checked ahead of everything else. Approvals, withdrawals and compounding decisions change what a page should say. |
| We sell | Nothing. There is no shop, no cart, no affiliate link, and no supplier directory. |
|---|---|
| We accept | No vendor sponsorship, no compounding-pharmacy money, no paid placement, and no guest posts. |
| Why it matters | Almost every other site ranking for these terms is selling the compound it is describing. That is the single biggest reason peptide information online reads the way it does. |
The rules we hold ourselves to
Every monograph carries a 1-5 evidence rating tied to a published, fixed definition. A peptide with enthusiastic online testimonials and no human trials is rated 1, however popular it is.
FDA-approved, approved elsewhere, in trials, or research-use-only. We do not blur these categories, and we say when a compound is unlawful to sell for human use.
Failed phase 3 trials, discontinued development programs and toxicity findings appear as prominently as positive data. Several peptides on this site are here mainly so readers can find out why they were abandoned.
pepteyes.com sells nothing, takes no vendor sponsorship, and links to no supplier. There is no version of this page where a buy button appears next to a safety warning.
For approved drugs we describe the studied indication. For research compounds we describe what was studied and in what species. Inventing a human dose for a compound never tested in humans is not education.
When evidence changes or we get something wrong, the monograph is updated and the change is noted. Regulatory status in particular moves quickly.
How a monograph is built
- Literature sweep. We search PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov for human data first. If there is none, that becomes the headline finding rather than a footnote.
- Regulatory check. Approval status is verified against FDA, EMA and the relevant national regulator, plus the WADA prohibited list where it applies.
- Evidence rating. Assigned against our published 1-5 scale using fixed definitions, so the rating does not move with how promising a compound sounds.
- Specialty review — not yet in place. This is the step the site does not currently perform. It is the difference between a well-researched reference and a clinically reviewed one, and we would rather name the gap than paper over it.
- Publication and re-review. Every page carries a date and is re-checked on a scheduled cycle, or sooner if regulatory status changes.
What we deliberately do not publish Dosing protocols for compounds never tested in humans; sourcing or vendor information; "cycle" and stacking guides; or any claim that a research chemical is safe because it is popular.