01 The evidence grade
Every peptide gets a single letter grade reflecting the strongest tier of evidence that actually supports its main claims, in humans, not just animals.
How grades can change. A peptide’s grade is not fixed. A phase 3 readout landing positively can move retatrutide from C to A. A failed replication can move a C-grade longevity peptide to D. We re-grade whenever the evidence picture materially changes, and we date every page so you can see when it was last reviewed.
WADA / sport status is separate. Whether a peptide is banned in tested sport is a regulatory question, not an evidence one. A grade-A approved drug (insulin) can still be WADA-banned for non-diabetic athletes; a grade-D research peptide (BPC-157) is also banned. We flag WADA status independently on every peptide page.
Approved use vs off-label use are graded separately. Semaglutide is grade A for type 2 diabetes and weight management. Its anecdotal off-label uses (cognition, longevity, etc.) carry the anecdotal flag, not the A grade.
02 What the research profile measures
The hexagon on each peptide page scores six dimensions from 0–10, so a peptide that’s wildly popular but barely studied looks visibly different from one that’s quietly well-evidenced.
03 The sources we trust, and the order we trust them in
When sources disagree, the higher tier wins. We cite primary sources directly and never treat a seller’s website or a forum post as evidence of effect.
- Systematic reviews & meta-analyses , e.g. Cochrane. The strongest summary of human evidence.
- Randomised controlled human trials , registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, published in peer-reviewed journals.
- Observational & cohort human studies , useful signal, weaker causation.
- Animal & in-vitro (lab) studies , where most peptide evidence currently sits; does not establish a human effect.
- Regulatory & official bodies , FDA, MHRA, EMA for approval status; WADA for sport status.
- Expert opinion , credentialed clinicians, clearly labelled as opinion.
- Anecdote, forums, seller claims , reported for context only, never as proof.
04 Our editorial principles
- ✓Fact, research and anecdote are always kept separate. We never present an unproven claim as established.
- ✓We don't give dosing or usage instructions. Where amounts appear, they're reported from the literature as information, not advice.
- ✓We're honest about weak evidence. If something is animal-only or seller-driven, we say so plainly.
- ✓Commercial independence. Any "where to buy" links are reference only, we are not paid by and not affiliated with those vendors.
- ✓We correct mistakes. Found an error? Tell us and we'll fix it and note the change.
05 How our content is made
We’re transparent about this: our pages are drafted with AI assistance, working from the primary sources above, and then structured and edited to the methodology on this page. We don’t publish a peptide page unless it adds something a generic summary wouldn’t, the evidence grade, the research profile, the honest verdict, and the myth-busting.
Independent expert review is being added. Until a named specialist has reviewed a given page, it carries an honest byline and review status, like this:
When a credentialed clinician or researcher reviews a page, their name, credentials and bio appear on it, and the status updates to reviewed. We never attribute a page to someone who hasn’t actually reviewed it.
06 Contribute
Become a Pepwyse reviewer
If you’re a credentialed clinician, pharmacologist or researcher and you care about cutting through peptide hype with honest, evidence-graded information, we’d love your name on the pages in your field. You review; we credit you prominently.
Get in touch →