Methodology
How we grade
Every peptide gets one grade. It answers a single honest question. How much do we actually know about this in humans?
The grade is not “does it work”, because that is usually unknown. It is not “is it popular” either. It measures how solid the human evidence is underneath the claims. A peptide can be fascinating in the lab and still score a D. Exciting animal data is not proof in people.
The scale
Grade A · Approved / strong human evidence
Approved medicine or robust human trials.
Grade B · Promising human evidence
Human trials exist but are incomplete.
Grade C · Early / limited human data
Some human data, far from settled.
Grade D · Animal data only
No meaningful human evidence yet.
Grade F · Negligible evidence / harm
Little to no human data, or documented harm.
Where the evidence comes from
We weight sources roughly in this order, and we say when something rests only on the weaker ones.
- 01Human randomised controlled trials and regulatory approvals. The gold standard.
- 02Other human studies. Cohort, observational and small pilot work.
- 03Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Of the studies above.
- 04Animal and in-vitro studies. Useful signals, but not proof in people.
- 05Case reports. The lowest weight, and flagged as such.
Primary references come from PubMed and the clinical-trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the ISRCTN and EU registries). Every entry links its sources so you can check our work.
What we will never do
- ✕Give doses, protocols or “how to use” instructions.
- ✕Sell anything, or take money from vendors or affiliates.
- ✕Call a research chemical safe or effective when the human evidence is not there.
- ✕Blur the line between a licensed medicine and a grey-market compound.
Grades are an editorial summary of the published evidence at the time of review, not medical advice. Evidence moves. We revise.