The Peptide Addict
EDITORIAL POLICY

Editorial Policy

The rules that govern what we publish, how we handle uncertainty, and how editorial judgment stays separate from commercial relationships.

The Peptide Addict publishes editorial content under seven non-negotiable principles. These rules define what we are and are not willing to ship.

1. Evidence first

Human outcomes outrank mechanisms, animal studies, anecdotes, and marketing. Every time. When an article makes a claim, we source it to the strongest available evidence and flag the tier clearly. If we can only cite animal data or mechanistic plausibility, we say so explicitly rather than writing around it.

2. Disclose uncertainty

If the evidence is thin, we say it. We do not hedge around weak data with qualified language that sounds like endorsement. If a compound has no published human trials, we state that directly and rate the evidence accordingly.

Our default editorial stance on most novel peptides: interesting signal, incomplete evidence, real demand, mixed incentives, proceed with clarity. That framing is not a hedge. It's the honest description of most of this category.

3. Separate editorial from monetization

Editorial ratings and judgments cannot be altered by affiliate relationships. Ever.

A vendor cannot buy a better score. A sponsor cannot influence which stories we cover. Our evidence ranking is structurally separate from any commercial relationship, and any commercial relationship is disclosed on every page that mentions the counterparty.

When we introduce affiliate relationships (planned for Phase 2 of the site, after trust-building is complete), they will operate under strict editorial rules:

  • Disclosure on every review and a sitewide disclosure page
  • Editorial scores are set before commercial terms are discussed
  • No affiliate relationship changes a score retroactively
  • Any vendor that attempts to influence a rating is disclosed in writing and the relationship is ended

4. No hidden agendas

Every commercial relationship The Peptide Addict has is disclosed in plain English on the Affiliate Disclosure page. Sponsored content — if we ever publish any — is clearly labeled as sponsored at the top of the article and in the URL structure.

We don't hide affiliations in footnotes. We don't use "this article may contain affiliate links" boilerplate as a substitute for specific disclosure. If a vendor paid us, you'll know.

5. Community reports are leads, not proof

Reddit anecdotes, X threads, YouTube comments, and forum reports are valuable — they tell us what people are using, what questions they're asking, what side effects they're noticing, and what myths are circulating. But they are not evidence of clinical outcomes.

We use community signal to find topics worth covering. We do not use it to settle factual claims. If a claim only exists in community posts, we say so, and we don't launder it into authority by dropping the qualifier.

6. Regulatory reality matters

Every piece that covers a compound addresses its legal and access context. A peptide's FDA status, compounding availability, and enforcement history are not footnotes — they're part of the compound's actual reality. Leaving them out is a choice to mislead the reader.

We translate regulatory language into plain English because that's useful. We do not simplify to the point of inaccuracy. When the legal status is ambiguous, we explain the ambiguity.

7. Trust compounds slower than traffic

Short-term traffic can be bought. Short-term attention can be manufactured. Trust cannot.

We optimize for long-term credibility over near-term clicks. That means we pass on stories that would drive traffic but compromise the brand. We refuse content formats that are popular but editorially weak. We publish slower than we could, and we think that's the right tradeoff.

If an editorial decision ever comes down to "credibility versus growth," credibility wins. No exceptions.

What we will not publish

  • Dosing protocols or sourcing instructions for unlawful or unsafe use
  • Personalized medical advice or diagnosis
  • Content that lowers the barrier to underground access
  • Reviews that disguise affiliate relationships as independent judgment
  • Claims about compounds that cannot be sourced to real evidence
  • Sponsored content without clear labeling

Corrections and updates

If we publish something factually wrong, we acknowledge it on the page and in the newsletter. No silent edits to articles. The correction log is open.

If new evidence changes our view, we update the page and flag the update. Our articles are treated as living documents.

This policy is version 1. Material changes will be noted on the page and in the newsletter.