How we review our content

1. Sources we use

We build our content from peer-reviewed research, FDA prescribing information and regulatory records, and registered clinical trials. When human evidence is limited, we identify findings from animal or laboratory studies and explain their limitations. References are listed on every page so readers can examine the evidence.

2. How claims are checked

Statements about how a peptide works, what it has been studied for, and its adverse effects are checked against the available evidence. We distinguish established findings from preliminary research and do not present marketing claims or anecdotes as fact.

3. Approved vs. experimental

Each peptide is labeled with its US status: FDA-approved, investigational, formerly approved, or not FDA-approved. Approved indications are kept separate from off-label and experimental uses.

4. Dosing information

Dosing sections describe protocols referenced in research settings and are labeled “for research.” They are not treatment recommendations. For FDA-approved medicines, these protocols may differ from the official prescribing information. We check units, schedules and the limits of the evidence.

5. Medical review

Every page is reviewed before publication by our dual-qualified physician–pharmacist (MD, PharmD), licensed in medicine and pharmacy. The date on each page indicates when its content was last updated.

6. Updates and corrections

We update content when new research, regulatory decisions or safety information warrant it. Readers can report possible errors through our contact page; each report is checked against the evidence, and confirmed errors are corrected.

7. Editorial independence

Doctor Pharmacist does not sell peptides. Our reviewer is not paid by any peptide manufacturer or seller to publish content, and scientific evidence, not commercial interest, guides what we publish.