Independent editorial on peptide science.

Peptide science is moving faster than most publications can keep up with. GLP-1 receptor agonists are rewriting obesity medicine. Compounding-pharmacy policy is in flux after the FDA's 2024–2026 actions. A new generation of longevity, healing, and cognitive peptides is making it to US shelves in some form. And most of what consumers read about them is vendor marketing dressed up as journalism.

We write for the reader who wants the signal, not the sell. Specifically:

• The GLP-1 category — semaglutide, tirzepatide, retatrutide, and the pipeline behind them.
• The research library — evidence explainers for BPC-157, GHK-Cu, CJC-1295, MOTS-c, and the peptides behind the biohacker conversation.
• The FDA tracker — live regulatory status updated as each rule, warning letter, and reclassification lands.
• The news desk — studies, trials, approvals, and policy shifts, summarized with the primary source linked.

We make deliberate editorial choices about what doesn't belong here.

• No dosing advice. We report what peer-reviewed studies administered and what trial protocols used, always citing the source. We don't publish protocols, schedules, or recommendations for human use.
• No “where to buy” articles for research peptides. Peptides sold “for research use only” are the subject of ongoing FDA enforcement. We refuse to be part of the nexus that courts have used to prosecute vendors and their partners.
• No first-person product endorsements or before/after photos. The FTC treats these as material connections that require disclosure and often punishes them. We stick to third-party evidence.
• No banned-vendor affiliate relationships. We will not link to any vendor currently under an FDA warning letter, terminated by their payment processor, or credibly flagged by the research community.

Every peptide page on this site is editorially reviewed and dated. When cited, our sources link to primary literature (PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA.gov, federal register filings, NEJM/Nature/JAMA) rather than repackaged press releases. We note our level of confidence in an evidence base explicitly: well-established, moderate human data, limited human data, or animal-only.

We correct errors promptly and visibly. If we update a page with a material change, we stamp it. If we retract a claim, we leave the original visible with a strike-through and a note.

We do not use generative AI to produce unreviewed content. Our news-desk pipeline uses AI to draft initial summaries from primary sources, but no article publishes without a human editor in the loop.

We carry affiliate relationships with a small number of partners — primarily telehealth providers who prescribe FDA-approved GLP-1 medications, and a vetted list of compounding pharmacies. These relationships are labeled inline above every affiliate link and summarized in our editorial policy.

Our rule: if we don't have an active affiliate relationship with a vendor, the vendor doesn't appear on this site. No free SEO traffic for companies we can't monetize. That constraint keeps our recommendations honest — we only write about companies whose terms we've read and whose conduct we're willing to put our name next to.

Affiliate revenue doesn't influence our ratings. We have declined sponsors and affiliate partners whose conduct or product quality we couldn't defend, and we will continue to.

The Peptide Examiner is a small independent publication. The editorial team is building out this section with named bylines, medical reviewer credentials, and author pages in our next release. Until then, editorial responsibility sits with the publication and its editor-in-chief.

Spot an error, or have a story we should be covering? Email tips@thepeptideexaminer.com. We read every message and protect our sources.