How this site is funded
Inside Your Peptides sells nothing directly — no store, no checkout, no products.
This site is published by the owners of the next lab, a vendor that appears in our sourcing coverage and in the vendor audit. That is common ownership, not an arm’s-length referral relationship, and it is the single most important thing to know about who is talking to you. It is disclosed in the footer of every page, in the sourcing desk on every page that carries one, and here.
The next lab’s link is the only paid link on this site. Every other vendor we grade is cited without payment, commission, coupon, or partnership of any kind. We hold no affiliate relationship with any of them. No vendor can buy a position here, because no vendor except the one we own pays us anything at all.
Links we are paid for carry rel="sponsored". Links we are not paid for carry rel="nofollow". The attribute on any vendor link on this site tells you which is which, and you can read it in the page source without taking our word for it.
No money from graded vendors
Comparison sites in this market are commonly funded by the vendors they rank, and the ranking input is often the commercial relationship rather than the documentation. When partnership strength is a scoring term, the score stops being a measurement and becomes a placement.
We took the other road for a plain reason: we already own a vendor on the board, so a second income stream from its competitors would make every grade unreadable. One declared interest can be checked against a public rubric. Seven undeclared ones cannot. If we ever add a commission relationship with a vendor we grade, it will be disclosed here and on the page before the link goes live, not after.
What referral money touches
- It cannot buy a grade. Vendor grades follow the documentation rubric published in the COA audit — six criteria, fixed weights, applied to documents anyone can open.
- It cannot buy coverage. Compounds are covered by reader interest and evidence significance, not by who sells them.
- It cannot soften a finding. Where a covered vendor's documentation has gaps, the coverage says so — you can read the grade deductions on the audit page right now.
- It can, obviously, create bias pressure. We are not going to pretend incentives don't exist — the defense is that our criteria are public, our claims cite checkable documents, and you are explicitly encouraged to verify rather than trust. Every skill we teach works without us.
Evidence standards
- Human trial data outranks animal data, animal data outranks mechanism, and mechanism outranks anecdote. Articles say which layer a claim sits on.
- Absence of evidence is reported as the finding it is. "No published human trials" appears in plain text where it is true, including for the market's most popular compounds.
- No invented numbers. Statistics carry sources. Where a commonly-repeated number has no citable anchor, we say so instead of printing it.
- Dosing content is descriptive, never prescriptive — it reports what published protocols used. Dosing pages carry no vendor links.
- Corrections are dated in place. Wrong things get fixed visibly, not silently.
What we will not publish
- Medical advice, individual protocols, or any instruction for human use of unapproved compounds.
- Sterility, safety, or efficacy claims that outrun the underlying documents.
- Paid placements presented as editorial. If a placement is ever paid, it will be labeled as an advertisement.
- Vendor grades we cannot back with documents we personally opened.
Corrections
Wrong things get fixed visibly, not silently — and the fix is dated where the error was.
Every page on this site carries a last reviewed date, and every report carries a revision number. When we get something wrong, the correction is made in place, the revision increments, and the change is described rather than quietly absorbed. We do not delete an error and move on, because a page that has been corrected is more trustworthy than one that has never admitted to needing it — and because a reader who acted on the old version deserves to be able to see what changed.
Corrections that arrive with a source go to the front of the queue. A claim we cannot re-verify gets softened or removed rather than defended; a claim that turns out to be right stays and gets its source strengthened. This applies to vendor grades exactly as it applies to evidence grades: if a vendor publishes documentation that changes their score, the score changes, and the audit says when and why.
The same standard governs what we will not do. We do not remove a finding because a vendor asks, we do not soften a grade in exchange for anything, and we do not quietly re-date a page to make old work look current.
The legal frame
Everything on this site is published for research and educational purposes only. Nothing here is medical advice, and nothing here is an offer to sell any compound. The research compounds discussed are, with noted exceptions, not approved for human use by any regulator; the approved drugs discussed [semaglutide, tirzepatide, and others] should be obtained exactly one way — through a licensed clinician and pharmacy. Talk to a physician before any decision that touches your health. Seriously.
Contact
Corrections, vendor submissions for the audit, and documentation tips are all welcome. A contact address goes up when the domain does, and not before. If you send a correction with a source, it gets read first.