Editorial policy
How the reference library is put together, what counts as a source, and what happens when something cannot be verified. This describes the process actually used, not an aspiration.
Every source is checked at its primary record
A study is only cited after its record has been retrieved and read. Identifiers are confirmed against the database that issues them rather than quoted from memory or from another website: PubMed identifiers through the National Library of Medicine, trial registrations through the ClinicalTrials.gov interface, and regulatory documents by opening the document itself.
Each source record carries the date it was last checked, and that date is shown with the citation. If a page says a source was verified on a date, someone opened it on that date.
What is not used as evidence
Vendor pages, affiliate sites, marketing material, discussion forums, unsourced blog posts, encyclopedia entries and machine-generated summaries are not treated as evidence for any factual claim. Source links are restricted by an automated check to a list of named authorities, so a citation cannot quietly point somewhere else.
Animal work is labelled as animal work
Every source is classified by the kind of evidence it is, and that classification is shown to the reader: a regulatory document, a randomised human trial, a human observational study, a case report, a registered trial, an animal study, a laboratory study, a review. Where a claim rests only on animals or cell culture, it is marked as such and the page says so in words.
Where a study reports a dose, that dose is presented as the parameter of that experiment, never converted into guidance for a reader. The phrasing used is what the study reported, not what anyone should take.
Gaps are published, not smoothed over
Where a widely repeated claim cannot be traced to a real source, the page says so and marks it unverified, with a note explaining what was looked for and what was found. Where a study exists but has a problem — an unblinded control group, an undisclosed sample size, a funder who makes the product — the limitation is stated on the same card as the finding.
Where the site has been wrong, the correction is published rather than quietly applied. See the corrections page.
If you think a source has been misread, or a claim here outruns what its citation supports, write to info@pepcaddie.com and it will be checked against the primary record.
What the site will not publish
No personalised medical advice, no recommended dose for a reader, no protocol or cycle to follow, no instruction for self-administration, and no purchase link, price or offer for any peptide. No invented author, reviewer, credential, rating or endorsement.