# About This Desk > About peptideradar — Tracking the Emerging Peptide Pipeline — peptideradar is an independent literature digest covering research peptides that are not approved anywhere. How this desk reads evidence, what it refuses to publish, and how to check its work. **EMERGING PIPELINE / COLOPHON** An independent reading of the published record on compounds that have not finished being studied — written to be checked, not believed. ## What this site is peptideradar is an independent literature digest covering research peptides in the emerging pipeline. It is not a clinic, not a pharmacy, not a vendor and not affiliated with any manufacturer, supplier or trial sponsor. Nothing on it is for sale, and no page recommends a human dose. The editorial premise is narrow and, on this subject, unusual: the most useful thing a peptide site can publish is an accurate account of where the evidence stops. Compounds in this category attract a peculiar kind of coverage — mechanism explained fluently, one impressive result quoted, and the developmental stage quietly omitted. A reader finishes the article believing a compound has been established when what has actually happened is that a mouse study was described well. So the organising commitment here is to lead with what is *not* settled. Every page states the stage a compound has reached, the species the evidence comes from, and the size of the studies behind any number quoted. Where the honest answer is that nobody knows, the page says so rather than filling the space with plausible prose. ## How the evidence is weighed Four tiers are used consistently across the site, and each claim is placed in one. Randomised controlled trials in humans rank first, because they compare a treated group against a control group and can therefore support causal statements. Observational human data rank second: valuable for generating hypotheses, incapable of showing that administering a compound does anything. Animal studies rank third — necessary, informative about biology, and routinely mistaken for clinical evidence. Cell and cell-free work ranks fourth. Two consequences follow from applying that ladder honestly. The first is that a compound with a long list of documented side effects usually has *better* evidence than one with none, because harms only become visible when a study goes looking for them. A blank safety record on an untested compound is missing data wearing the costume of reassurance. The second is that single-group findings are flagged as such. A result awaiting independent replication is a lead, not a conclusion, and this desk marks the difference rather than smoothing it over. Community reports are included where they exist, always labelled as anecdotal, never accompanied by a quantity, and never treated as though they settle anything. ## What this desk will not publish Some omissions are deliberate and permanent. peptideradar does not publish human dosing recommendations, administration schedules, reconstitution or handling instructions, or any guidance framed as advice for an individual. Where a quantity appears on this site, it is the amount given to participants in a cited clinical trial under supervision, reported as a study fact. It does not name, link to, rank or evaluate suppliers, and it does not accept material from them. It does not offer an opinion on whether a person should use any compound described here — a question that belongs to a licensed clinician who can examine the person asking it. It also does not round numbers upward for effect. Where a hazard ratio sits at 1.004 and a p-value at exactly 0.05, both figures are printed as they were reported [9], because a reader deciding how much weight to put on a result needs the actual numbers rather than the adjective. ## How to check this site Every quantitative claim carries a bracketed number keyed to the [references page](/references), where each source is listed with authors, journal, year and a persistent identifier. The intended workflow is adversarial: pull the source, read the abstract, and confirm the sentence here matches what the paper reported. Corrections that catch a drift between the two are the most valuable messages this desk receives, and the [contact page](/contact) explains how to send one. Where a claim appears without a bracketed number, it is not supported by a source in this digest — usually a matter of regulatory status or of a limitation stated in the field's own reviews — and it is written to be checkable against the public record rather than accepted on this site's authority. --- peptideradar is an independent literature digest on unapproved research peptides that reports where the evidence stops rather than where the marketing starts — not a clinic, not a vendor, and not medical advice.