How we source, fact-check, and disclose.

Every factual claim in a peptide article is backed by one of the following, in order of preference:

1. Peer-reviewed primary literature — PubMed, PMC, NEJM, JAMA, Nature, Cell, The Lancet, and other indexed journals.
2. Regulatory filings — FDA.gov, EMA, federal register, FDA advisory-committee transcripts, FOIA releases.
3. Clinical trial registries — ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register.
4. Manufacturer-submitted labels and prescribing information — with appropriate skepticism.
5. Tier-one science journalism — STAT, BioPharma Dive, Endpoints News, Nature News, The Lancet's editorial pages — when they cite primary sources we can verify.

Vendor marketing, unverified social-media claims, and press releases rewritten without verification don't count as sources. We link to the source directly, not through an affiliate shopping link.

When we describe an evidence base, we use these honest, consistent labels:

• Well-established — multiple randomized controlled trials in humans, FDA or other regulatory approval for the indication described.
• Moderate human data — at least one Phase 2 RCT plus supporting evidence; label indications often limited.
• Limited human data — early Phase 1/2 trials, observational data, or uncontrolled case series.
• Preclinical / animal-only — benefits demonstrated in animal models or cell culture; no meaningful human evidence.

We tag evidence tiers on every peptide page. The goal: if a reader sees “animal-only” next to an exciting benefit claim, they can calibrate accordingly.

• Dosing protocols, dose ranges, or schedules for human use of research-use-only peptides.
• “Where to buy” articles for any research-use-only peptide.
• First-person product reviews or testimonials. When we review a product, we review the evidence base or the provider's contract terms, not our personal experience.
• Before/after photos of human subjects used to imply treatment outcomes.
• Any content sponsored or paid for by a vendor, labeled or not.

We carry affiliate relationships with a small number of FDA-approved-telehealth providers and vetted compounding pharmacies. Per our site policy, we only feature vendors with active affiliate relationships — if we can't monetize them, they don't appear on the site. This avoids giving unscreened vendors free SEO traffic.

Every affiliate link is labeled inline with a clear disclosure box directly above the link. Every article containing affiliate links carries a top-of-page affiliate disclosure. Our footer carries a site-wide disclosure. This exceeds the FTC's 16 CFR Part 255 requirement of “clear and conspicuous” disclosure.

Affiliate revenue is not shared with any author before publication. Our affiliate partners cannot see, suggest, or edit our coverage. If we lose a partnership over a critical review, we consider that confirmation we did our job.

As of this writing, The Peptide Examiner uses editorial review, not medical review. This means our team verifies claims against primary sources, but no licensed physician or pharmacist currently holds review authority over every peptide page. We disclose this openly on every article via the editorially reviewed byline.

Retaining a named medical reviewer (PharmD or MD) is a priority. When that happens, applicable pages will carry their name, credentials, and review date in a clearly labeled block.

We correct promptly and visibly. If an article contains a factual error, we fix the error, stamp the article with an “Updated [date]” note at the top, and if the correction is material, post a note at the bottom explaining what changed and why.

If we retract a claim, we strike through the original text and explain the retraction inline. We don't stealth-edit and we don't take down articles to hide errors.

Spot something wrong? Email tips@thepeptideexaminer.com.

Our news desk uses AI (Anthropic's Claude) to draft initial summaries of regulatory actions, clinical-trial readouts, and peer-reviewed papers based on the primary source. Every draft passes through a deterministic quality gate (citation verification, link validity, structural checks) and a human editor before publishing. Nothing hits the site without a human reviewer.

We do not use AI to generate evergreen evidence explainers (our peptide pillar pages) — those are written by humans and reference-checked manually.

We explicitly allow GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, and Google-Extended to crawl the site, and we publish a /llms.txt guidance file. We believe answer-engine citations are a legitimate traffic channel and a reason to structure content to be citable rather than click-baited.

We do not allow bulk scraping for commercial AI training without permission beyond what robots.txt permits.

If you have a story about a peptide vendor, a regulatory action, an adverse event, or a clinical-trial development, we want to hear from you. Email tips@thepeptideexaminer.com. We protect sources and will work with you on any attribution concerns.