Trust & transparency
Our editorial & evidence-review process
Every dosing page and guide is written from primary sources, traced back to the studies behind each claim, evidence-graded, and dated — so you can see exactly how proven each statement is. Content is produced by our editorial team, not by licensed clinicians; where a clinician does review a page, we credit them by name on it.
1
Researched from primary sources
We work from peer-reviewed studies, clinical guidelines and regulatory documents — never from forums or reused blog posts.
2
Checked against the evidence
Every factual claim is traced back to a cited source, and each compound is graded by how strong that evidence actually is.
3
Dated & re-reviewed
Pages carry a “last updated” date and are revisited when new evidence lands, so guidance doesn't quietly go stale.
How we grade evidence
● Clinical trials
Supported by randomized human trials or established clinical use.
◑ Limited human
Small studies or early-phase trials — promising but not definitive.
◔ Preclinical
Animal or in-vitro data only. Human effects are unproven.
Our editorial standards
We cite primary research
Claims link to the study behind them (PubMed, NEJM, The Lancet, clinical guidelines) — not to other blogs.
We grade the evidence honestly
A visible tier — clinical / limited-human / preclinical — tells you how proven a claim really is, so nothing reads as more certain than it is.
We don't sell peptides
No vials, no pharmacy, no upsell. Our dosing pages have no commercial reason to push you toward more.
We correct mistakes
Found something wrong or outdated? Email us and we'll fix it and note the change.
Note on authorship: articles are published under the Peptide Me editorial team. Where a licensed clinician reviews a specific page, they are credited by name on that page. We don't attach fictitious credentials to content. Read about Peptide Me and why we stay neutral.