Why this site exists
Most peptide content is written by people selling peptides.
That shapes what gets said. Benefits are stated as fact, risks are footnotes, and the difference between an FDA-approved drug and an unapproved research chemical disappears entirely. We built pepteyes.com to hold those apart.
We separate evidence from marketingEvery monograph carries a 1-5 evidence rating tied to a published, fixed definition. A peptide with enthusiastic online testimonials and no human trials is rated 1, however popular it is.
We state regulatory status plainlyFDA-approved, approved elsewhere, in trials, or research-use-only. We do not blur these categories, and we say when a compound is unlawful to sell for human use.
We publish negative resultsFailed phase 3 trials, discontinued development programs and toxicity findings appear as prominently as positive data. Several peptides on this site are here mainly so readers can find out why they were abandoned.
We do not sell peptidespepteyes.com sells nothing, takes no vendor sponsorship, and links to no supplier. There is no version of this page where a buy button appears next to a safety warning.
We do not publish dosing protocols for unapproved compoundsFor approved drugs we describe the studied indication. For research compounds we describe what was studied and in what species. Inventing a human dose for a compound never tested in humans is not education.
We correct in the openWhen evidence changes or we get something wrong, the monograph is updated and the change is noted. Regulatory status in particular moves quickly.