About Peptide Review HQ
Peptide Review HQ exists because the research peptide market has an information problem. Suppliers publish marketing copy, forums pass along dosing folklore, and the actual clinical literature sits behind terminology most readers never get near. We sit in between: we read the trials, convert them into practical reference material, and say plainly when the evidence is not there.
How we research
- Primary sources first. Dosing ranges, efficacy figures and safety data come from peer-reviewed publications and trial registrations — PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and journal publications — not from vendor product pages.
- We distinguish evidence tiers. Animal data is labeled as animal data. Preclinical is labeled preclinical. A compound with mouse results does not get described in the same language as one with a completed Phase 3 trial.
- Negative results are reported. When a compound failed in human trials, that is in the article, even when the compound is popular and sells well.
- Pages are dated and revised. Trial data changes. Every page shows when it was last updated, and we revise rather than quietly leave stale claims up.
How suppliers are assessed
Supplier recommendations rest on four checks: batch-specific certificates of analysis with named test methods (HPLC for purity, mass spectrometry for identity), pricing that is consistent with real synthesis and testing costs, fulfillment reliability including cold shipping where it matters, and how the company behaves when an order goes wrong. A supplier that cannot produce a COA matching the batch on the vial does not get recommended here regardless of commercial terms.
Who writes this
Evan Marsh — Editor. Editor of Peptide Review HQ, writing under a pen name. I am not a clinician, and this site does not pretend otherwise. The role here is research and editorial: reading the primary literature, checking every figure against the paper it came from, and refusing to describe animal data as though it were human evidence.
Saying that plainly matters more than a borrowed credential would. Plenty of sites in this space imply medical authorship they do not have. What this site offers instead is traceability: every quantitative claim links to the study, the drug label, or the regulator's own page, so you can check the source rather than trust the author. A pen name is not a barrier to that — the sources are either there and checkable, or they are not.
Medical review. No page here is currently reviewed by a licensed clinician. When that changes, the reviewer will be named on the specific pages they reviewed, with their credentials and the date — not as a site-wide badge. Until then, treat this as well-sourced reference material rather than clinical guidance, and take decisions to a physician.
How we make money
This site is reader-supported through affiliate links. When you buy through a link on our pages, we may earn a commission at no additional cost to you. Those links are marked, and full detail is on ouraffiliate disclosure page.
Commission rates do not determine rankings. Where a compound with no affiliate relationship has better evidence, it ranks higher — the weight-loss ranking puts approved prescription medicines above products we can earn from, because that is what the trial data supports.
What this site is not
We are not physicians and this is not a medical service. Nothing here is medical advice, a diagnosis, or a treatment recommendation. Compounds described as research chemicals are not approved for human consumption, and we do not encourage human use of unapproved substances. Consult a licensed physician before making any health decision.
Corrections
If you find a factual error — a misquoted trial figure, an outdated approval status, a broken dosing conversion — tell us and we will correct it and note the change. Accuracy is the entire value of a site like this.