Every page on Peptide Vault is built the same way, in the same order. This is that process, written out so you can judge the output against it.
## Where the material comes from
Each compound and guide starts with a research pass that pulls from three kinds of source, weighted in this order:
1. Peer-reviewed literature and trial registries — PubMed, published trials, systematic reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov entries.
2. Regulatory and institutional records — FDA approvals, the 503A and 503B bulk substance lists, WADA’s prohibited list, and manufacturer prescribing information.
3. What is currently being published on the topic — the pages ranking for the question, read to find out what claims are circulating and which ones have nothing behind them.
The third category is the one to be careful with. We read it to know what people are being told; we do not treat it as evidence. A claim that appears on twenty vendor pages and in zero studies is reported as exactly that.
## How claims get checked
Once a page is drafted, every factual claim in it is checked back against the research document it was written from. Each claim comes out of that pass in one of three states:
- Verified — the source supports the claim as written.
- Unsourced — the claim may be true, but nothing in the research supports it. These are either rewritten to match what the sources actually say, or removed.
- Questionable — the claim contradicts or overstates the source. These are corrected before the page is published.
This step has caught real errors on our own drafts: a compound described as having “FDA-recognized” status when it is approved in other countries but not the US, a dose-response rationale that no cited study contained, and a cancer-risk claim that the underlying research did not support.
Those were fixed before publication because of this pass, not after a reader found them.
## Evidence ratings
Every compound carries a rating, and the rating describes the strength of the human evidence, not how promising the compound sounds.
- Moderate — human trial data exists, including at least one controlled trial, though it may be small or narrow in scope.
- Limited — some human data exists, but it is uncontrolled, very small, or restricted to a single research group or country.
- Emerging — the evidence is animal, cell-culture, or mechanistic. No meaningful human data.
Most peptides sold online are Limited or Emerging. That is not a judgment about whether they work; it is a statement about what has been demonstrated so far. Read the full breakdown on how we rate evidence.
## What we do not do
We do not tell you what to take. Dosing information on this site reports what studies used and what practitioners report using, never what you should use. We are not clinicians and nothing here is medical advice.
We also do not test, resell, or handle any compound. We have no laboratory and we do not run assays. When a page discusses purity or sourcing, it is reporting what regulators and published testing have found, not our own results.
## Corrections
If something on this site is wrong, we want to fix it and say that we fixed it. Email us with the page and the source that contradicts it, and we will either correct the page or explain why we read the evidence differently. Corrections are noted on the page itself.