Anyone can publish a peptide "guide." What's rare is a peptide reference that tells you exactly how it decides what to say, admits where the evidence is thin, and shows its work when it's wrong. This page is that disclosure — the same standard we'd want if we were reading someone else's site.
Every page on PeptideReport.ai — every hub, every compound profile, every guide — is built against the same four standards before it publishes.
Every page carries a real byline — Dr. Scott DelBoccio, DMD — not an anonymous "editorial team." Credentials are stated accurately; we never claim "MD" when the credential is "DMD."
Every claim about efficacy or safety is tied to a stated evidence level. "Some studies suggest" is not an acceptable substitute for naming the study, the population, and the sample size.
FDA-approved, foreign-approved, and investigational-only are stated in plain language on every page — with the jurisdiction named, not implied.
This site does not sell peptides, does not link to vendors or sourcing pages, and has no affiliate relationship with any compounding pharmacy or supplier.
Every factual claim on this site traces back to one of the source types below. Marketing copy, forum anecdotes, and unverified vendor claims are never used as a primary source, though we do reference them when explicitly correcting a misconception that has spread through them.
| Source Type | Used As Primary Evidence? | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Peer-reviewed RCTs & systematic reviews | Yes — highest weight | Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; NEJM; JCEM |
| Regulatory filings & labels | Yes | FDA NDA/label text; EMA; Russian Ministry of Health approvals |
| Peer-reviewed mechanism/preclinical studies | Yes — labeled as preclinical | J Pharmacol Exp Ther; Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology |
| Government/regulatory advisory proceedings | Yes | FDA Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee minutes |
| Vendor marketing & product pages | No | Referenced only to identify and correct a specific spreading error |
| Forum posts & anecdotal reports | No | Never cited as evidence of efficacy or safety |
| Uncited "some studies show" claims | No | If we can't name the study, we don't make the claim |
Adapted from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine hierarchy for the realities of peptide research — where regulatory approval outside the US is common and needs its own honest framing rather than being treated as equivalent to, or dismissed relative to, FDA approval.
The highest tier available in peptide research. Note: a Cochrane review existing does not mean its finding is favorable — Level I means the evidence quality is high, not that the result flatters the compound. We report the actual finding either way.
One well-designed, randomized, controlled trial from a Western regulatory context, without an accompanying systematic review.
Meaningful human trial data exists, but either the endpoints are surrogate markers rather than clinical outcomes, or the pivotal trials were conducted under a non-Western regulatory framework without independent Western replication.
Rodent, in vitro, or mechanistic data exists, but no controlled human trial has been published. We say so explicitly — "no human safety data" rather than "limited human data" when the honest answer is zero.
Content on this site is produced with the assistance of AI research and drafting tools, working from primary-literature research — never from vendor copy or a competitor's page — with every draft reviewed and edited under Dr. DelBoccio's physician judgment before it publishes. We disclose this plainly because pretending otherwise would violate the honesty standard this whole site is built on.
Before any page is drafted, the relevant peer-reviewed studies, regulatory filings, and systematic reviews are identified and read — including checking whether a commonly repeated claim about the compound is actually supported by the source it's attributed to.
Each compound is assigned its evidence level (I through V) based on the sourcing standards above — this determines the tone of the page before a word of copy is written, so the writing never gets ahead of the evidence.
Where a compound has a widely repeated claim circulating in vendor or forum content, we trace it back to its origin. If the claim doesn't hold up — a misattributed study, an outdated regulatory status, a fabricated citation — we correct it explicitly on the page rather than silently omitting it.
Dr. DelBoccio reviews every page for clinical accuracy, compliance framing (education never prescription, no disease-cure claims, regulatory status stated plainly), and editorial tone before it goes live.
When new literature is published, a regulatory status changes, or an error is identified — by us or by a reader — the page is updated in place. See our correction policy below.
We would rather be visibly wrong once and fix it than quietly leave an error standing. Recent examples of corrections made on this site:
PeptideReport.ai is currently authored and reviewed by one physician, Dr. Scott DelBoccio, DMD. We are not a multi-physician editorial board, and we say so rather than implying broader institutional review than actually exists.
Dr. DelBoccio's credential is a Doctor of Dental Medicine (DMD), not a Doctor of Medicine (MD). This is stated accurately in every schema.org author block and byline on this site — we do not permit "MD" to appear anywhere in reference to this author, in either direction of ambiguity.
This site carries no advertising, no affiliate links, and no paid placement for any compound, compounding pharmacy, or clinic. If that ever changes, this page will be updated to disclose it before the change takes effect.
Content is drafted with AI research and writing assistance, working from primary literature, and reviewed and edited under physician judgment before publication. We disclose this because a site built on evidence honesty should apply the same honesty to how it's produced.
Dr. DelBoccio's degree is a DMD, and we state that plainly rather than implying a broader medical credential. His focus is peptide pharmacology and longevity medicine research — see the full bio for background. Readers should always weigh a source's actual credentials, which is exactly why we state ours precisely instead of rounding up.
Pages are revisited when new primary literature is published, when a regulatory status changes (an FDA advisory vote, a nomination withdrawal, a new approval), or when an error is identified. There is no fixed calendar — the trigger is new information, not a schedule.
Yes — see the About page for contact information. Reader-identified corrections are treated the same as internally identified ones: fixed in place, and where material, disclosed here.