How We Report

Ten principles govern every issue of The Peptide Current. They are not aspirational. They are operational. See also our editorial policy for how our AI-assisted verification pipeline actually works, issue by issue.

1. 01
   Independence. The Peptide Current accepts no payment, consideration, or other benefit in exchange for editorial coverage. No source, advertiser, sponsor, partner, or investor has any influence over what we cover, how we cover it, or what conclusions we reach. Editorial decisions are made by editors, not by anyone who sells anything.
2. 02
   Primary sourcing. We source from primary literature first — peer-reviewed studies, preprints, regulatory filings, court records, government data, and official transcripts. Secondary and tertiary sources are used only when primary sources are unavailable or impractical, and only when clearly noted. We do not use press releases as sources. If we can't link to the study, we don't make the claim.
3. 03
   Verification. Every factual claim in every issue is verified against at least one primary source before publication, and logged in a public verification log published alongside the issue — not "available on request." Where a claim is contested or uncertain, we say so explicitly. Where we cannot verify a claim, we do not publish it — and we tell you what we cut and why. That second list is often the most useful part of the page.
4. 04
   Attribution. All quotations are attributed by name and professional affiliation. Anonymous sourcing is used only when a source faces a credible risk of professional or personal harm from identification, and only when the information cannot be obtained on the record. When we use anonymous sources, we say so and explain why.
5. 05
   Conflicts of interest. We disclose any financial relationship between a source and the subject they are commenting on. We do not use as authoritative commenters people whose primary income derives from the products or practices they are assessing, without disclosing that relationship to readers. We apply the same standard to ourselves: our financial relationships are disclosed in our Disclosures.
6. 06
   AI disclosure. We use artificial intelligence systems in research, drafting, and verification — see our editorial policy for the actual step-by-step pipeline. One system prepares a source-grounded draft; a separate system rechecks factual claims against the cited primary sources. Publication is a separate manual action and is never automatic. We do not describe the second-system check as human review.
7. 07
   Medical and legal scope. The Peptide Current is a news and analysis publication, not a clinical resource. Nothing we publish constitutes medical, legal, or financial advice. We do not recommend for or against use of any substance. We do not recommend treatments, products, or providers to individual readers. We cover what the science says; we do not tell readers what to do about it.
8. 08
   Plain language. We do not use jargon without explanation. We do not use complexity as a substitute for precision. We write like your sharpest friend who actually read the studies — not journal-boring, not vendor-hype-y. If a reader does not understand a sentence, that is our failure, not theirs. Where technical terms are necessary, we define them on first use.
9. 09
   Proportionality. We represent the weight of evidence as accurately as we can. A single small study is reported as a single small study. Expert consensus is reported as expert consensus. We do not headline the exception and bury the rule. We do not dramatize uncertainty for effect. We do not minimize genuine controversy for the sake of narrative clarity.
10. 10
    Corrections. When we make a factual error, we correct it promptly and transparently. Corrections are published in the next issue, noted in the online archive, and logged in our public corrections record. We do not append corrections quietly or characterize errors as updates. We explain what was wrong and what is right.