METHODOLOGY: HOW PEPVAULT IS BUILT
Transparency about sources, process, and limitations is how we maintain the credibility that makes PepVault useful. Here is exactly how data is researched, written, verified, and updated.
1.Primary sources and research process
Every compound profile begins with the published scientific literature: PubMed-indexed studies, clinical trial registry records (ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register), FDA approval documents, WADA prohibited list official releases, and pharmacological review articles. Where a direct citation exists for a specific claim, we use it and link to the primary source.
For compounds where human clinical data is sparse — which describes most research peptides — we rely on animal literature, mechanism-focused review articles, and pharmacological principle extrapolations. We flag these cases explicitly rather than presenting animal findings as established human outcomes.
We do not base claims on forum posts, marketing materials, vendor educational content, or popular peptide websites that do not cite primary sources. The risk of circular citation in this space is high — vendor educational content often cites other vendor content or older forum posts that themselves are not sourced. We trace claims back to primary sources or we do not make them.
For dosing information specifically: we source from published pharmacological studies where available, from clinical trial protocols where human trials exist, and from physician-authored clinical references (such as published protocols from compounding pharmacy physicians). Community dosing consensus is noted as anecdotal when it represents the primary available guidance.
Where genuinely no reliable data exists for a specific question — a common situation in the research peptide space — we say so explicitly rather than filling the gap with speculation. Acknowledging the limits of current knowledge is part of responsible communication.
2.Update frequency and accuracy maintenance
FDA and WADA status is reviewed monthly. Clinical trials and regulatory publications that change the status of any compound on PepVault prompt an immediate update to the relevant profile, with the change date and previous status noted. Regulatory changes in this space happen without warning and can be significant.
Compound profiles are reviewed on a rolling annual basis. A profile that was accurate in 2023 may not reflect a Phase II trial published in 2024, new safety signals that emerged from user reports, or regulatory reclassification. Annual review ensures no profile becomes critically outdated without a refresh.
Dosing recommendations carry the date they were last verified. Protocols that have not been reviewed in 12+ months are flagged internally and prioritized for verification before we actively distribute them. What was 'standard protocol' in 2021 has often been refined by additional research or community experience.
When new research contradicts previous guidance, we update the profile and note the change explicitly: what we previously stated, what the new evidence shows, and how confident we are in the new guidance. Reversions of previous guidance — cases where new data reversed an earlier recommendation — are documented rather than silently changed.
Community feedback informs our review priorities. User reports of inconsistencies between our profiles and their experience, or of recent literature we have not addressed, drive which profiles get reviewed next. The compound that the community is most actively questioning is usually the one most in need of an update.
3.What PepVault does and does not do
PepVault provides information. It does not provide medical advice, individual medical assessment, or personalized recommendations. The distinction matters: a general explanation of BPC-157's mechanism and typical dosing range is information. 'You should use BPC-157 at 500 mcg twice daily for your specific tendon injury' is medical advice that requires clinical evaluation by a qualified healthcare provider.
We do not maintain vendor lists, referral relationships, or affiliate arrangements with any peptide vendor. Our editorial independence on sourcing is deliberate. Vendor endorsement would create a conflict of interest that compromises our credibility as an information source. We describe what quality looks like (documentation, testing standards, community reputation) and allow users to apply those criteria.
We do not cover compounds that are structurally close to scheduled substances where the legal status is ambiguous enough to create meaningful legal risk for users without adequate ability to caveat it. Some peptide-adjacent compounds fall in spaces where the legal analysis is complex and jurisdiction-dependent in ways that require legal expertise, not health information expertise.
We update when we are wrong. When a claim in PepVault turns out to be incorrect — due to a research error, new contradicting evidence, or an interpretation mistake — we correct it promptly, note the correction, and do not silently revise. Trust depends on this.
PepVault is not a research community, a forum, or a social platform. It is a reference resource. For real-time community discussion, evolving vendor reputation, and peer protocol support, community platforms like r/Peptides, specialized Discord servers, and other community forums serve a different and complementary role that we specifically do not try to replicate.
Sources & Studies
Grimes DA, Schulz KF., Lancet, 2002
Gabler NB. et al., Ann Intern Med, 2011