How PeptaHub researches peptides.

Every peptide profile on PeptaHub is built from primary research first. The hierarchy we work from, strongest to weakest:

1. Phase 2/3 clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov or equivalent, with published results in peer-reviewed journals.
2. Phase 1 human studies (safety, pharmacokinetics, tolerability), especially where they are the only human data available.
3. Peer-reviewed preclinical research — animal models and in-vitro mechanism papers indexed on PubMed.
4. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses when they exist and are recent enough to be relevant.
5. FDA labels, EMA summaries, and regulatory filings for approved compounds.
6. Investigator interviews and lab statements from the research groups actually producing the underlying science (e.g., the University of Zagreb group for BPC-157).

What we do not treat as primary sources: vendor marketing pages, unsourced forum claims, Reddit folklore, telehealth company blogs, and AI-generated summaries of any of the above. These can be useful for understanding what the community thinks, but they are not evidence in the sense this reference uses the word.

Not every peptide has the same quality of evidence behind it. Some are FDA-approved with hundreds of trials. Others have a handful of rodent studies and nothing else. Treating both the same way would be dishonest, so every profile tags its evidence level explicitly:

• FDA-approved — approved for one or more indications by a recognized regulator, with published clinical evidence.
• Clinical trials available — at least one completed human trial with published results, but not yet FDA-approved for the use in question.
• Phase 1 / safety data only — human safety and PK data exist but no efficacy trials.
• Preclinical only — evidence is animal models, in-vitro work, or mechanistic studies. No completed human trial.
• Speculative / mechanism-inferred — use cases extrapolated from related compounds or in-silico work. Rare, always tagged.

When a peptide's clinical claim is based on preclinical evidence only, the profile says so, in plain language, usually more than once. This is the single most important editorial discipline on the site.

When studies disagree — and for research peptides, they often do — PeptaHub does not pick a winner silently. The profile presents the disagreement, weights the studies by size and quality, and names the uncertainty.

In practice that means phrases like “one 2024 RCT (n=48) reported effect X; a larger 2023 observational cohort (n=1,200) found no signal”, with both linked. The reader decides. We are not in the business of synthesizing false certainty.

Peptide research and peptide regulation both move fast. PeptaHub's update cadence is designed to stay current without sacrificing accuracy:

• Regulatory status fields — reviewed weekly against FDA enforcement announcements, EMA updates, and HHS/compounding-pharmacy news.
• Clinical trial references — reviewed quarterly against ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed for new publications.
• Full profile audits — each profile is re-read end-to-end at least twice a year. When a major new paper drops, the relevant profile is re-audited the same week.
• Last-updated dates— every profile shows when it was last reviewed. “Reviewed” means a human read the whole profile against current sources, not that a timestamp was auto-bumped.

PeptaHub will make mistakes. When it does, the policy is simple:

1. Send the profile URL and the specific claim, with a source if you have one, to corrections@peptahub.com.
2. Every correction request is acknowledged within 72 hours.
3. Verified errors are fixed within 7 days. Factual changes are logged on the profile's edit history, with the date of the correction visible. Silent edits of factual claims are not allowed.
4. If a correction is declined — for example, because the original citation actually supports the claim — the requester gets a written explanation, not silence.

The bar for a correction is the same as the bar for a claim: a source that a reader can verify. “I heard this on a podcast” is not a source.

A few things the reference is not, and will not become, because the integrity of the research depends on it:

• Not a vendor. PeptaHub does not sell peptides, does not take commissions from sellers, and does not accept sponsored placements inside profile pages.
• Not a clinic. PeptaHub does not prescribe, does not diagnose, does not provide individualized medical advice. The medical disclaimer is on every relevant page for a reason.
• Not vendor-affiliated. No affiliate links to gray-market peptide sellers, period. This is a locked editorial decision.
• Not a replacement for a clinician. If a peptide is something you are seriously considering, the right next step is a conversation with a licensed medical professional who knows your history and your labs.

PeptaHub is founded, compiled, and edited by Sean Tehrani. Sean does not sell peptides, hold equity in any peptide vendor, or accept sponsored placements inside profile pages. The site runs on subscription revenue (planned), adjacent advertising (planned — categories like supplements, wearables, telehealth; never peptide vendors), and personal funding.

When PeptaHub adds medical reviewers or additional named contributors, they will be listed on the About page with their credentials, their disclosures, and the profiles they have reviewed. Until then, profiles are compiled and edited by Sean against the methodology on this page.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: none. If that ever changes, this page updates first.