research and evidence
How we separate evidence from observation
This archive holds two fundamentally different kinds of information, and we never let them merge into a single narrative: published scientific and regulatory evidence, and self-reported observational data. This page explains how each is labeled and why the distinction matters.
Cited published sources
Peer-reviewed studies, clinical trial results, and other published research, tiered by evidence quality (see below) and always attributed to the original source.
Official regulatory sources
Approval status and approved indications, sourced directly from regulatory bodies such as the FDA — never inferred or extrapolated.
Eligible archive data
Aggregated, de-identified statistics calculated from approved observational reports under our documented methodology, always shown with sample size and bias disclosures.
Institutional explanations
Plain-language context we write ourselves — like this page — clearly labeled as our own explanation, not a citation to an external source.
evidence tiers
How published evidence is classified
Every citation on a directory page is labeled with one of these tiers. Anecdotal reports are never merged into a clinical-evidence rating — a peptide with strong observational activity in the archive but no published clinical trials is labeled exactly that way, not rounded up.
- FDA-approved clinical use — approved for a specific indication
- Phase 3 human evidence — large-scale controlled human trials
- Phase 1 or Phase 2 human evidence — early-stage human trials
- Observational human evidence — non-randomized human studies
- Case reports — individual clinical case documentation
- Animal research — non-human trials
- Laboratory research — in vitro / preclinical work
- Anecdotal reports only — no published research identified beyond self-reported accounts
- Insufficient evidence — not enough published material to characterize
from observation to open question
What a recurring pattern is — and isn't
When the same effect shows up across many independent, eligible observations, we treat that as an open research question worth flagging — never as proof. A recurring pattern in self-reported data can be a starting point for real research; it is not a substitute for it.
Concretely: an archive statistic can tell you what contributors reported. It cannot tell you what caused it, how common it would be in a representative population, or whether it would happen to you. Only controlled research and regulatory review can establish that, which is why this page keeps those two kinds of information visibly, permanently separate.