Editorial Policy

This page documents how Peptides Insider sources information, fact-checks claims, handles conflicts of interest, and corrects mistakes. We publish it because we think YMYL content (Your Money or Your Life — health, legal, financial) should be transparent about its methodology.

Source standards

Every benefit claim, dosing recommendation, mechanism explanation, and side-effect listing must be traceable to at least one of:

A peer-reviewed paper indexed on PubMed.
A registered clinical trial on ClinicalTrials.gov, EU CTR, or similar national registry.
FDA documentation (labels, briefing documents, summary basis of approval).
A peer-reviewed systematic review or meta-analysis (preferred for efficacy claims).

We do not cite vendor copy, podcast transcripts, social media accounts, or undocumented anecdotes. We do not cite secondary sources (e.g., other peptide blogs) as evidence; if they cite a primary source we use, we cite the primary source directly.

Fact-checking process

Every new or updated content page goes through:

Source selection. We pull primary literature relevant to the compound or topic, prioritizing recent randomized trials and systematic reviews.
Claim mapping. Every benefit, dose, mechanism, and side effect in the draft is mapped to a specific citation. Claims without a primary source are removed or rewritten.
Conflict screening. We flag any compound where the primary funder of relevant trials is also a partner we earn commission from. We disclose this on the page when it applies.
Accuracy pass. A second reviewer spot-checks 3–5 random claims against the cited sources.
Publish + log. The page goes live with a “Last updated” date and a structured citation list.

Update cadence

We update pages when meaningful new evidence emerges — a new trial changes our efficacy or safety read, an FDA label updates, a systematic review reverses prior conclusions, or readers flag a real error. We update the “Last updated” date on every revision and note material changes in a revision log when the change is non-trivial.

Pages with significant clinical relevance (anything in the GLP-1 family, FDA-approved compounds, and any compound with reported serious adverse events) are reviewed at least every 90 days.

Independence & expertise

Peptides Insider does not employ in-house medical professionals. We rely on primary literature and a structured editorial process rather than on-staff clinical credentials. We are working toward contracting credentialed clinical reviewers (pharmacists or MDs) on a rolling basis to attribute formal review of high-stakes pages — that attribution will be visible on the page when it lands.

We do not present unsourced expert opinion as fact. When research is ambiguous, we say so.

Affiliate disclosure

Peptides Insider earns affiliate commissions when readers purchase peptides through partner links. Partner links are disclosed wherever they appear (banners, sidebars, and inline links). Affiliate relationships do not influence:

Which compounds we cover.
What we say about efficacy or safety.
Which studies we cite.
How we rank compounds for a given goal.

We have walked away from partners whose product claims we could not substantiate. We will continue to. If you suspect a piece of content has been influenced by a commercial relationship, email us at our contact form and we will publicly correct or unpublish.

Corrections policy

We correct mistakes. Email our contact form with the URL, the specific claim, and a primary source. We typically respond within 5 business days. Material corrections are noted in the page's revision log; minor edits (typos, formatting) are not.

What we will not do

We will not give individual medical advice. We will not respond to personal dosing or treatment questions via email. Consult a qualified healthcare provider.
We will not publish protocols for compounds with no human safety data unless we explicitly label that absence.
We will not accept sponsored content disguised as editorial. Period.