A reference desk for peptide science
Most peptide writing you can actually read is marketing. Most peptide writing you can actually trust sits behind a paywall and reads like a textbook. We work in the gap — and where we point you at a supplier, we say so on the page.
What we do
We read the published research on peptides and write it up in plain language. That covers how peptides are made, how they are purified, how labs check them, how they break down, and the rules that govern all of it.
You should not need a chemistry degree to understand your own paperwork. Our readers are lab staff, quality and compliance teams, buyers, science journalists, and researchers moving into peptide work from another field. We assume you are smart. We do not assume you are a specialist.
When we use a technical term, we explain it the first time it appears. We keep the real terms rather than hiding them, because those are the words printed on your paperwork.
What we will not publish
This line matters enough to state plainly instead of burying it in a policy page.
- Doses, protocols, injection instructions, or usage advice of any kind.
- Claims that a compound treats, cures, or prevents any condition in anyone.
- A result stated more confidently than the study that produced it.
- An article whose conclusion was decided before the sources were read.
We report what has been measured and published. Where the evidence is thin, we say it is thin instead of rounding it up. Several of our articles conclude that a compound’s reputation runs ahead of its evidence, and we publish those unchanged.
Our commercial relationship
Articles about a specific compound carry a link to Nalu Labs, which sells research-grade material for laboratory use. That link is commercial. It sits in a marked box at the foot of the article, separate from the text, so you can tell at a glance which part is editorial and which part is not.
The arrangement does not touch what we write. No supplier reviews an article before publication, no supplier can request a change to one, and nothing is added to or removed from an article because of it. The same page that links to a shop will tell you when the human evidence for that compound is three pilot studies, or a number nobody measured, or a trial that was cancelled without publishing — because that is what the sources say.
If you ever find a claim on this site that reads as though it were written to sell something, send it to us and we will look at it.
Corrections
Send us the article, the exact claim, and the source that contradicts it. We aim to reply within five working days and to publish a correction within ten. The correction is added to the article itself, with the date and what changed.
Method
See it applied →Sourcing
Every fact traces back to a published study, an official handbook, or a regulator's own document. If we are relying on someone else's summary, we label it as one.
Two-reader review
A second person checks each article against its sources before it goes live. Not just that the source exists, but that it actually says what we claim it says.
Versioned in public
Each article carries a version number. Corrections are added with the date and what changed. We never quietly edit a claim after publishing it.