PeptideDosages.com is an educational resource that publishes peptide dosage protocols, reconstitution guides, and research-backed informational content. This editorial policy explains how our content is created, sourced, reviewed, and maintained so you can evaluate the information we provide and decide how much weight to give it.
Our Mission
Our mission is to provide the most accurate, clearly sourced, and practically useful peptide dosage information available online. Most peptide dosage information on the internet originates from forums, social media, clinic marketing, or vendor product pages, often without citations, without context on evidence quality, and without clear disclaimers. We exist to raise that standard.
We are an educational publisher, not a healthcare provider, pharmacy, or peptide vendor. We do not diagnose, treat, prescribe, or sell. Our content is designed to help researchers and informed readers understand what the published evidence actually says and where it is limited.
How Content Is Sourced
All substantive claims on PeptideDosages.com, including dosage ranges, mechanisms of action, side effect profiles, pharmacokinetics, and safety information, are sourced from one or more of the following categories:
Primary sources (highest priority)
- Peer-reviewed journal articles published in indexed biomedical journals (e.g., journals indexed in PubMed, Scopus, or Web of Science). These include randomized controlled trials, clinical pharmacology studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
- FDA prescribing information (PI) and drug labeling for FDA-approved peptide products (e.g., somatropin, semaglutide, tirzepatide, tesamorelin). These documents represent the most rigorously reviewed dosing and safety data available.
- Clinical trial registrations and results from ClinicalTrials.gov and equivalent registries, particularly for peptides in active development.
Secondary sources (supplementary)
- Endocrine society guidelines and consensus statements (e.g., Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for GH therapy).
- Government and regulatory agency publications (e.g., FDA safety communications, WADA prohibited lists, DEA scheduling decisions, Federal Register determinations).
- Medical reference texts and pharmacology databases (e.g., StatPearls/NCBI Bookshelf, Lexicomp, Micromedex).
What we do NOT use as primary sources
- Forum posts, Reddit threads, or social media content
- Vendor or manufacturer marketing materials (except for factual product specifications)
- Anecdotal user reports without corroborating published evidence
- AI-generated content that has not been verified against primary literature
- Other peptide information websites, unless they cite primary sources we can independently verify
Content Creation Process
Each piece of content on PeptideDosages.com, whether a dosage protocol page, a blog article, or a resource guide, follows a consistent creation process:
1. Research and literature review
Before any content is written, we conduct a literature search using PubMed, Google Scholar, FDA label databases (DailyMed, Drugs@FDA), and relevant regulatory sources. For dosage protocol pages, we identify published dosing ranges from clinical trials, prescribing information, and guideline documents. We prioritize human clinical data over preclinical (animal) data wherever available.
2. Drafting with inline citations
Content is drafted with citations embedded at the point of each factual claim. We do not write content first and add citations afterward. The evidence drives the content, not the other way around. Every protocol page and blog article includes numbered inline citations that link directly to the source document.
3. Accuracy verification
Before publication, key claims are cross-checked: dosage ranges are verified against the cited source, unit conversions are recalculated, and safety information is confirmed against current prescribing information or the most recent published data. Reconstitution math (concentration, syringe units, doses per vial) is independently recalculated to verify correctness.
4. Publication and ongoing monitoring
After publication, content remains subject to updates as new evidence emerges, FDA labeling changes, or errors are identified. We do not consider published content to be “final.” It is a living document that should reflect current evidence.
Citation Standards
Our approach to citations follows these principles:
- Inline, not footnoted: Citations appear at the point where the claim is made, not buried at the bottom of the page. Readers should be able to see immediately which source supports which statement.
- Linked to the original source: Wherever possible, citations link directly to the full-text or abstract of the source document so readers can verify claims independently.
- Numbered for reference consistency: Citations are numbered sequentially within each article. A single source may be cited multiple times if it supports multiple claims.
- Source diversity: We aim to cite multiple independent sources for important claims rather than relying on a single study. Where only one source exists (e.g., a single Phase II trial for a newer peptide), we note this limitation.
Evidence Quality and Limitations
Not all evidence is equal, and we believe our readers deserve to understand the difference. Our content distinguishes between:
- Strong evidence: supported by multiple randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, or established FDA-approved labeling. We present this information with confidence.
- Moderate evidence: supported by limited clinical trials, observational studies, or guideline recommendations based on expert consensus. We present this as “research suggests” or “clinical data indicates” rather than as established fact.
- Preliminary or preclinical evidence: supported only by animal studies, in vitro research, or very early-phase human trials. We explicitly flag this as preliminary and note the gap between animal data and proven human outcomes.
- Insufficient evidence: where claims circulating online lack credible published support, we say so directly rather than repeating the claims uncritically.
We believe this transparency makes our content more useful, not less. A reader who knows the evidence is preliminary can weigh that differently than one who is told something is “proven” based on a single mouse study.
Updates and Corrections
Routine updates
We periodically review published content to ensure it reflects current evidence. Priority for review is given to protocol pages for peptides with active clinical development (where new trial data may change dosing recommendations), pages with high traffic, and pages where readers have flagged potential issues.
Corrections
If we identify an error, whether a dosage calculation mistake, an incorrect citation, a misstatement of a study’s findings, or any other factual inaccuracy, we correct it promptly. For substantive corrections (those that affect dosing information or safety claims), we note the correction at the top of the article with the date and a brief description of what changed.
Reader-reported issues
We take reader feedback seriously. If you believe any content on our site contains an error, a broken citation, an outdated dosage recommendation, or a misleading statement, please contact us through our Contact page. Include the specific page URL and a description of the issue. We investigate all reports and respond when corrections are made.
Third-Party Links
External source links
Our content links to external sources for two purposes: citations (linking to the published evidence behind our claims) and cross-references (linking to regulatory documents, government resources, and other authoritative references). These links are provided for reader verification and do not imply endorsement of any organization or product.
Vendor and product links
Some pages include links to third-party peptide vendors that sell research-use-only products. These links exist because readers frequently ask where peptides can be sourced for research, and providing a reference is more useful than leaving the question unanswered. Where vendor links appear:
- The vendor is identified by name, and the link goes to a specific product page.
- All vendor product pages include their own disclaimers (typically “for research use only, not for human consumption”).
- The presence of a vendor link does not constitute an endorsement of the vendor’s product quality, purity claims, or business practices.
- We do not accept payment from vendors to write favorable content, to alter dosage recommendations, or to suppress safety information.
Editorial Independence
PeptideDosages.com maintains full editorial independence. Specifically:
- No vendor editorial control. No peptide vendor, manufacturer, or advertiser has any input into, review authority over, or approval rights for our content. We select which peptides to cover, what evidence to cite, and what safety warnings to include based solely on our editorial judgment and the available literature.
- No pay-for-placement. We do not accept payment in exchange for creating content about a specific peptide, featuring a vendor’s products, or removing unfavorable safety information.
- No suppressed information. If published evidence shows that a peptide carries specific risks, contraindications, or limited efficacy, we include that information regardless of whether it conflicts with popular marketing claims or vendor interests.
What This Site Is Not
To avoid any ambiguity:
- We are not a medical provider. Nothing on this site constitutes medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not have a patient-provider relationship with our readers.
- We are not a pharmacy. We do not sell, distribute, compound, or dispense any peptides, medications, or controlled substances.
- We are not a clinical research organization. We do not conduct clinical trials, sponsor research, or collect patient data.
- We are not a substitute for professional guidance. Readers considering any use of peptides in a clinical or therapeutic context should consult a qualified healthcare professional who can evaluate their individual circumstances.
Contact Us
Questions about our editorial policy, corrections, or content concerns can be directed through our Contact page. We aim to respond to editorial inquiries within a reasonable timeframe and prioritize reports of potential errors or safety-related concerns.
This editorial policy was last updated in March 2026.