About PeptideHound
PeptideHound is an independent editorial reference for peptide research compounds. We document what published research reports — what was studied, in what model, at what amounts, and what remains unknown.
PeptideHound Staff · Last editorially reviewed
What this site is
An editorial publication, not a clinic, a vendor, or a telehealth service. We sell advertising and Featured vendor listings, both labelled; neither buys anything in a vendor record or changes a verification outcome (what each includes). Nothing here is medical advice, and no page should be read as a protocol to follow.
Why it exists
Most writing about these compounds is produced by people selling them. The result is a literature of confident claims with nothing underneath: a dose with no study behind it, a benefit attributed to a molecule that has only ever been given to rats, a safety record that is quiet because nobody looked rather than because nothing happened. We built the opposite — a reference where every claim carries the paper it came from, and where the absence of evidence is reported as plainly as its presence.
How a page is made
Every page is written against a source pack: the published literature for that compound, pulled from PubMed, Europe PMC and Crossref. Each factual claim on a page carries a verbatim quotation from one of those sources, and that quotation is checked against the abstract character by character before the page can publish. A claim whose quotation does not support it does not ship.
A page is then checked for things a human reviewer misses at scale: whether a claim has drifted from the sentence it is attached to, whether a stated absence has been scoped to the evidence we actually read, whether a citation still resolves, and whether the page duplicates one of our own. Pages that fail are not published. There is no draft state and no "coming soon" — a page either carries its evidence or it is not on the site.
The full method, including what each check looks for, is set out in our editorial standards.
Who writes it
Pages are bylined PeptideHound Staff. We do not publish physician bylines and our pages are not medically reviewed, because we are not clinicians and will not imply otherwise. A byline that suggested clinical authority we do not have would be the first dishonest thing on the site.
What stands in its place is the method above. We are not asking you to trust our judgement about what a compound does; we are showing you the paper, the model it was run in, and the amount it was run at, so you can read it yourself. Where the evidence is weak we say so. Where it does not exist we say that too, and that is the sentence most of our competitors will not write.
What we will not publish
A recommended dose. A ranking, score or rating of compounds or vendors. A conversion from an animal amount to a human one. A claim without a source. Anything presented as medical advice. A verification outcome that was paid for.
When we get it wrong
We publish corrections rather than quietly editing. Every correction is logged with the date, what was wrong, and what it was changed to, on our corrections page — including the factual errors we found ourselves. If you think a page misreads a paper, tell us and point at the paper; that is the fastest way to get it fixed.
What is here now
49 compounds documented across 1,529 linked citations, last reviewed 2026-10-05. Coverage is uneven on purpose: some compounds have a substantial human trial record and several pages each, and others have almost no indexed literature at all, in which case we say so rather than padding a page to look complete.