How pages in this archive are researched and updated
Every page follows the same method: collect public material, separate it into source layers, write the summary in neutral language, then attach dates and citations. The method is deliberately boring, because the boring parts are what keep a summary honest.
Corrections are made in place. Where a claim cannot be traced to a public source, it is removed rather than softened, and where a topic changes quickly the page carries a visible update date so readers can judge how current it is.
Source layers
Paper, podcast and community material are treated as different layers with different authority. A summary never blends them.
Community material is described as discussion and never presented as verification of anything.
- Peer-reviewed literature settles factual disputes
- Podcast material is summarised as secondary background
- Community threads are opinion that raises questions
- Every layer is labelled on the page
Language rules
Company and brand strings are written lowercase so that cataloguing never looks like promotion. Superlatives are avoided because peptide outcomes rarely share a comparable metric.
Where a search phrase is transactional, the page reframes it and states plainly that no sourcing guidance is provided.
- Lowercase brand strings throughout
- No rankings or best-of lists
- No outcome promises or medical claims
- Transactional phrasing reframed
Updates and corrections
Pages are revisited when source material moves, and each revision keeps the earlier framing visible through its date.
Readers who spot an error can reach the archive through the contact page; substantive corrections are applied in place rather than in a separate note.
- Visible update date on every page
- In-place corrections
- Removed claims are deleted, not softened
- Sources rechecked on revision
Last updated: 2026-09-20