Marketing vs Evidence: Reading Peptide Claims
Borrowed citations, route-switching, chart laundering, and stack logic — the four tricks behind most peptide sales pages.
The four recurring tricks
- Borrowed evidence: citing full thymosin beta-4 research to sell the TB-500 fragment, or topical GHK-Cu trials to sell injectables.
- Route-switching: AOD-9604 earned its human safety record with oral tablets; sellers ship injectables citing that record.
- Chart laundering: presenting rodent extrapolations as "dosage charts" with body-weight rows that imply tested human doses.
- Stack logic: combining single-compound animal findings into combination protocols no trial has ever run.
Questions that puncture claims
Ask: what species? what route? what endpoint? versus what control? Then ask who profits from the answer. A seller quoting a 1998 selectivity study is accurate; a seller implying that study proves fat-loss outcomes is laundering relevance.
What honest content looks like
It names authors and reviewers, links primary sources, reports what studies actually administered, grades evidence, discloses failure and discontinuation history, and refuses to recommend doses for unapproved compounds. Anything less is a sales page with citations as decoration.
Knowledge check
Answer 5 questions — 4 correct passes and earns 50 points.
1. A TB-500 page cites wound-healing trials of full thymosin beta-4. This is:
2. AOD-9604 injectables marketed on "proven human safety" commit which trick?
3. A BPC-157 chart lists doses by body weight. The correct interpretation is:
4. The strongest single question to ask of any efficacy claim is:
5. Which disclosure marks honest peptide content?
Points are credited once per module, up to 5 point-earning completions per calendar month. Back to all modules