Grey Peptides Editorial Board
Who writes this
Grey Peptides is published under the Grey Peptides Editorial Board rather than individual bylines. That is deliberate, and it is worth explaining rather than leaving as an absence.
On most peptide sites, the byline is doing persuasive work — a name, a credential, a headshot, all inviting you to trust the claim because of who made it. This site is built so you never have to do that. Every substantive claim carries a citation to a primary source you can open and read yourself: FDA prescribing information, EMA product characteristics, PubMed-indexed publications, ClinicalTrials.gov records, manufacturer regulatory filings. The authority is in the source, not the author. Where a claim cannot be sourced, it is labeled as unsourced rather than asserted with confidence it has not earned.
Grey Peptides operates with zero commercial bias — no peptide sales, no vendor commissions, no compensated reviews, no affiliate links of any kind. It sells nothing and links to no vendor. There is no revenue that a favourable claim could increase, which is the only reliable guarantee of neutrality.
Editorial standards
Every entry is written and reviewed against primary sources before publication, following a consistent methodology:
- Primary sources first. FDA prescribing information, EMA product characteristics, PubMed-indexed peer-reviewed publications, ClinicalTrials.gov entries, and manufacturer regulatory filings form the foundation of every entry.
- Honest evidence grading. Every entry carries an evidence grade — high, medium or low — reflecting the strength of the published human data, not marketing claims or community enthusiasm. The grade is shown on the entry itself, and it is independent of both FDA approval and how well the compound sells.
- Clear regulatory labeling. FDA-approved compounds, investigational compounds, discontinued compounds, and research-only compounds are each labeled distinctly so readers know exactly where a substance stands. Approval by a regulator outside the United States is never reported as FDA approval.
- Community dosing disclosed as community dosing. Where no regulator-endorsed dose exists, community protocols are reported and clearly labeled as non-clinical guidance.
- Non-peptides flagged. Small molecules and full proteins that enter community discussion are included but identified as such.
- Depth is disclosed, not implied. Entries vary in depth. A short entry means the published evidence is thin or the compound is poorly characterised — not that the topic was treated casually.
How evidence is graded
Every compound in the encyclopedia carries one of three evidence grades, shown as a badge at the top of its entry. The grade answers one narrow question: how good is the published human evidence? It is not a safety rating, not a recommendation, and not a prediction that the compound works.
Efficacy has been tested in humans in controlled trials large enough to answer the question asked — typically a completed Phase 3 programme, or an approval dossier a regulator has reviewed. A high grade does not mean the compound is safe, effective, or a good idea. It means the evidence exists and can be read. Several compounds graded high here failed their endpoints; the grade describes the quality of the test, not the result.
Humans have taken it under study conditions and the results were published, but the evidence stops short of a completed Phase 3 — Phase 1 or 2 trials, small controlled studies, or a programme that was halted before it finished. Discontinued compounds sit here when their human results reached publication. This is the most common grade for anything in active development, and it is the grade most often inflated elsewhere.
There is no human efficacy evidence worth relying on. What exists is preclinical — cell culture, rodents, primates — or case reports, or literature that has not been peer-reviewed in a language most readers can check. Low does not mean disproven. It means untested, and untested is the honest thing to say about most of what is sold in this category.
Two things follow from grading evidence rather than outcomes, and both are visible in the numbers above.
The grade is independent of FDA approval. 50 compounds here are graded high and are not FDA-approved — cerebrolysin, buserelin and atosiban all have substantial trial literature and no US marketing authorisation, usually because nobody filed or because a filing failed on a specific endpoint. Approval is a regulatory decision in one country. Evidence is evidence.
The grade is independent of how well a compound sells. 71 of the 296 compounds catalogued here are graded low and sold as research chemicals — meaning no usable human efficacy data exists for them at all. That set includes BPC-157, TB-500, GHK-Cu, MOTS-c, Epithalon, KPV, DSIP and Melanotan II: between them, the best-selling compounds in the category. Every one is graded low on this site. A site that earned commission on those sales could not print that sentence, which is the reason this one carries no commission.
Where a grade is wrong, it should be corrected rather than defended. The corrections address is at the bottom of this page, and a grade challenged with a citation will be re-read against it.
The site
Grey Peptides currently includes a 296-entry peptide encyclopedia, a suite of interactive research tools, a long-form guide library, per-compound dosage references, a compounded-GLP-1 transition hub, and a regulatory tracker covering FDA advisory committee activity and per-compound approval status. The site is designed as a reference work — the register of a medical encyclopedia rather than a blog or a marketing site.
Corrections
Factual corrections are taken seriously, and correcting the record matters more here than being right the first time. If an entry misstates a mechanism, misattributes a finding, or cites an outdated source, contact editors@greypeptides.com. Material corrections are made promptly and noted in the entry's metadata.