What we do, how we work, and how we make money — without the marketing.
Who we are
Peptide Repo is an editorial guide to therapeutic peptides. We read the research, run every monograph through editorial and clinical review, and publish plain-English verdicts on what the evidence actually says — including, often, that the evidence isn’t there yet.
We are not a peptide brand. We don’t manufacture, package, ship, or compound. We don’t sell peptides directly. When a reader decides to try a peptide we cover, they leave our site to a licensed fulfillment partner, and that partner handles everything that has to do with product, prescription, and care.
This separation is intentional. It lets us write about peptides the way a publication should — without worrying about whether a verdict will hurt our own inventory, our own margins, or our own legal exposure. The evidence is the evidence. We tell you what it says.
What we do
We publish three kinds of work:
Peptide monographs. A monograph for each peptide we cover. Mechanism, evidence, dosing literature, regulatory status by country, and a verdict (one of five — see “How we review” below). Updated whenever new research or regulatory changes warrant.
Tools. A reconstitution calculator, a protocol builder, a dose tracker, a regulatory tracker by country. Free to use, no account required for read-only tools.
Briefings. A weekly newsletter covering new peptide research, regulatory shifts, and synthesis news. We don’t sell ads in the briefing. The briefing is funded by the same affiliate commissions that fund the rest of the site.
What we don’t do
We don’t:
- Recommend peptides for any condition
- Provide medical advice
- Replace a relationship with a clinician
- Promote peptides for unapproved uses
- Take payment from peptide brands to feature their products
- Hide our affiliate relationships
- Delete or quietly edit articles when a verdict turns out to be unpopular
If we change a verdict, the previous version stays accessible via the corrections log on the same page. See #corrections.
How we make money
Peptide Repo earns commissions when readers buy through links to our fulfillment partners.
We are funded by those commissions, not by the peptide brands themselves. No peptide on this site appears here because someone paid us. Our verdicts are decided before we negotiate any partnership.
If a partner’s product or process degrades — counterfeit reports, customer-service collapses, regulatory issues — we drop them. The verdict on a peptide does not change because of partner economics, but the partner we route to can and does change.
A peptide can be on our site with a verdict of Established, Promising, or Investigational and still have no partner link — because we haven’t found a fulfillment partner we trust to send readers to. Absence of a partner link is a deliberate signal, not an oversight.
We are not paid for clicks, traffic, or impressions. The commission only matters when a reader actually decides to buy from a partner. This means our incentives are aligned with reader trust, not reader attention. If we tell you something doesn’t work and you read the article and don’t click the partner link, that’s a successful day for us — we built a piece of writing that serves you, even if it doesn’t earn anything.
The full per-link disclosure appears next to every partner link on the site. It says, in short: if you buy through this link, the seller pays Peptide Repo a commission, and our verdict didn’t change based on who pays. That is true on every link, every time.
How we choose what to cover
We prioritize peptides that meet at least one of these criteria:
- High clinical relevance (semaglutide, tirzepatide, GLP-1 family)
- High public interest with weak public information (BPC-157, TB-500)
- Active research literature where readers will struggle to assemble a coherent picture from journals alone
- Regulatory inflection points (peptides whose legal status is changing in major markets)
We deprioritize peptides that are mostly marketing, mostly hype, or mostly inseparable from a single brand’s promotional ecosystem. If a peptide only exists in influencer content, it probably doesn’t belong on Peptide Repo.
Reader requests are welcome. We do not guarantee coverage.
How we review peptides
Every peptide on Peptide Repo is assigned one of five verdicts:
- Established — strong randomized human evidence; widely prescribed
- Promising — meaningful human data accumulating, not yet RCT-strong
- Investigational — mechanism plausible, human trials sparse
- Insufficient evidence — not enough data to say anything responsible
- Cautionary — active safety signals or misuse patterns worth naming
The full method — what kinds of evidence move a verdict, who reviews each monograph, when verdicts are re-evaluated — lives on its own page: How we review peptides.
If you want to understand why we give a particular peptide a particular verdict, that page is the answer. We treat it as one of the most important pages on the site, not as buried documentation.
Editorial standards
Every monograph cites primary sources where they exist. We link to PubMed records, clinical trial registries, regulatory documents, and review articles directly — not to secondary summaries. If we paraphrase a finding, we link to the paper.
We label evidence by quality, not by recency. A 2008 RCT in NEJM outweighs a 2024 single-arm pilot, and our writing makes that visible.
We disclose conflicts of interest. If a contributor has a financial relationship with a peptide manufacturer, an investigator on a relevant trial, or a fulfillment partner, that’s named at the top of any monograph that contributor touches.
We do not run paid placements, sponsored content, or “advertorials.” If we ever do, that section will be bordered, labeled, and visually segregated from editorial content. Currently we have no such content.
Corrections
When we get something wrong, we say so on the page where we got it wrong. Substantive corrections are dated and described in a “Corrections” section at the bottom of the affected monograph. Verdicts that move from one state to another are listed in a per-monograph version history.
Typos and small clarifications are fixed silently. Anything that would change a reader’s interpretation is not.
If you spot something you believe is wrong, tell us at [email protected]. We read every one.
Contact
- Editorial: [email protected]
- Corrections: [email protected]
- Partnerships: [email protected]
- Press: [email protected]
We are a small team. We will reply to substantive editorial questions, corrections, and press inquiries. We will not reply to peptide-brand pitches or guest-post offers — please do not send them.
Last revised: 2026-04-24 — first published version