Editorial Policy

How sources are selected

We work from primary sources, in this order of preference:

1. Regulatory documents — FDA approval letters, prescribing information, advisory committee briefing materials, agency guidance and public listings.
2. Trial registrations — ClinicalTrials.gov and equivalent registries, including protocol and results records.
3. Peer-reviewed literature — with preference for randomised controlled trials, then systematic reviews, then other study types, in the context of what question is being asked.
4. Government and academic institutions — NIH, CDC, university research publications.

We link to original research rather than to blogs summarising research. Where a secondary source is used — a sponsor press release announcing topline results, for example — it is labelled as such in the reference list, and the page says plainly that peer-reviewed publication has not yet occurred.

How research is evaluated

Every compound and every research area is assessed against the published evidence ratings criteria. Three rules govern that assessment:

• Species and study design are never omitted. A finding in rats is described as a finding in rats, in the sentence that reports it.
• Surrogate endpoints are distinguished from clinical endpoints. A change in a hormone concentration is not a clinical benefit.
• Absence of evidence is reported. Where no controlled human trials exist, we say so explicitly rather than filling the space with mechanism.

Where the evidence does not support a conclusion, the page says that. We would rather publish “this has not been established” than manufacture a verdict.

Distinguishing evidence levels

We use one taxonomy across the whole site, applied identically to approved drugs and research chemicals. The five levels — CLINICAL, EARLY CLINICAL, PRECLINICAL, LIMITED and INSUFFICIENT — describe the published research record only. They are not safety ratings, not recommendations and not predictions. Each level's criteria, and what it explicitly does not mean, are published in full.

How articles are updated

• Every page shows its publication date and its last reviewed date.
• Compound profiles are reviewed on a rolling basis, and out of cycle whenever a regulatory decision, trial readout or significant publication affects them.
• Where a page relies on preliminary information — sponsor-reported results, for instance — it states that, and it is updated when the peer-reviewed publication appears.
• Pages whose citations have not yet been verified against primary sources are flagged visibly and excluded from search engine indexing until that verification is complete.

How errors are corrected

If we get something wrong, tell us through the contact page. Our process:

1. The claim is checked against its primary source.
2. Where the source does not support the claim, the page is corrected promptly.
3. Substantive corrections — anything that changes the meaning of a factual claim — are noted on the page, with the date and what changed. We do not silently rewrite history.
4. Typographical and formatting fixes are made without a notice.

Editorial and commercial content

This separation is absolute, and it is the policy we expect to be judged on:

• Compound profiles, research reviews, comparisons, science and regulation articles carry no affiliate links. They are editorial content and are written without reference to commercial relationships.
• Commercial pages — supplier evaluations and reviews — are labelled, and carry a visible affiliate disclosure above the first commercial recommendation rather than buried in the footer.
• No company can pay for a favourable assessment, for placement, for a rating, or for the removal of criticism.
• Supplier evaluations are conducted against published criteria, and the criteria are published before the ratings, not after.

Conflicts of interest

• Affiliate relationships are disclosed on every page where a monetised link appears, and identified in our central vendor configuration.
• Contributors disclose any financial interest in a company, product or compound they write about. Where a material interest exists, they do not write the assessment.
• We do not accept payment for editorial coverage, guest posts, link insertions or “sponsored” research content.

What we will not publish

• Dosing, reconstitution, administration, cycling or stacking guidance for any compound.
• Claims that an unapproved compound diagnoses, prevents, cures or treats any disease.
• Invented studies, citations, authors, reviewers or credentials.
• Product test results we did not obtain.
• Content generated to target a keyword rather than to answer a question a reader actually has.

Authorship and review

Every editorial page carries a byline and a review date. We do not create fictitious medical reviewers. Where a named expert reviews a page, their name and real credentials appear on that page and on their author profile — and only on the pages they actually reviewed.