An independent digest that writes down the absences

What this site is

Checked Peptides is an independent literature digest covering four compounds discussed under the heading of research peptides: BPC-157, retatrutide, NAD+ and PT-141. It is not a clinic, not a pharmacy and not a vendor. Nothing here is for sale, no product is recommended, and no supplier is named.

The editorial idea is simple and slightly unusual. Most writing about these compounds is organised around what studies found. This desk is organised around the four questions a study answers by omission: which species it used, how many participants it enrolled, how long it ran, and which endpoint it measured. Those four facts decide what a result is worth, and they are usually the first things dropped when a finding travels from a journal to a forum to a product page.

So every compound page here has the same shape. It states plainly what the literature establishes, cites the study by number, and then names what that study left open. A page that ends without an open question is a page that has not finished reading.

How the desk reads a study

Five rules govern every summary on this site.

A claim carries its species. A result in rats is written as a result in rats, not as a result. This is not pedantry: the compound with the most impressive animal literature here has almost no human literature at all ^[2].

A number carries its citation. Every percentage, participant count, duration and effect size on this site points to a numbered source on the references page. Where a figure could not be traced to a source in that list, it is either omitted or explicitly flagged as unsummarised, which happens twice on this site and both times it is said out loud.

A surrogate is labelled as a surrogate. Weight, HbA1c, liver fat on a scan and NAD+ in blood are measurements taken because they are practical, not because they are the thing anyone cares about. They are described that way here ^[8][13].

Anecdote is labelled as anecdote. Where community reports are summarised, they are introduced with the words anecdotal, not clinical evidence, they carry no amounts, and they are never presented as supporting or contradicting a trial result.

No dose is recommended to any person. Where an amount appears, it is the amount used in a cited study or specified in an approved label, and it is written as a description of what was studied ^[11][22]. Nothing on this site tells anyone what to take.

What the desk will not do

It will not advise on human use of any compound covered here, endorse a product, name a supplier, or evaluate one. It will not answer a question about an individual situation, which is a matter for a clinician who can actually examine the person asking. It will not soften a gap because the compound sounds promising, and it will not exaggerate one because the compound is unapproved: retatrutide's Phase 2 evidence is genuinely strong ^[11][12], and saying so is part of the same discipline as saying that BPC-157's human evidence barely exists ^[2].

It also will not print a fabricated citation, a paraphrased study nobody wrote, or an invented number. Every reference on this site comes from a signed, previously audited source list, and the numbered index on the references page is the whole of it.

Corrections are welcome and are the most useful message this desk receives. New trial readouts in particular change these pages: several of the largest gaps recorded here, especially the retatrutide outcome trials ^[8], are gaps that a publication could close at any time. The contact page explains what makes a correction easy to act on.