About and Editorial Policy

RTB Sciences is a reference site about peptide compounds — what is known about them, what is claimed about them, and the difference between the two.

#What this site covers

Four kinds of writing, and they follow different rules:

Explainers. General background on a compound or a class — structure, how it is described, where it came from, what it is used for and by whom. These do not always rest on a specific trial, and they do not pretend to.

Research summaries. Plain-language breakdowns of individual papers or bodies of evidence, including study design, size, duration, and funding.

Myth and claim checks. A specific claim in circulation, traced back to where it came from, set against whatever is actually known. Some of these end in “this is unsupported.” Some end in “nobody has checked, and here is why that matters.”

Practical reference. Measurement, reconstitution arithmetic, terminology, unit conventions, storage, and the vocabulary needed to read anything else on the subject.

#What this site is not

Not medical advice. Nothing here is a treatment recommendation and nothing here is a dosing protocol. Consult a clinician about your own situation.
Not an endorsement. Most compounds discussed here are not approved for human use in any jurisdiction. Where something is approved, the article says so and for what.

#How claims are handled

Not every question has a literature behind it, and pretending otherwise is the failure mode this site exists to avoid. Articles distinguish between four situations, explicitly:

Established in humans. Controlled trials in people, with design and size stated so the reader can weigh them.
Suggested but not established. Preliminary, small, short, or inconsistent findings — labelled as preliminary every time, and not upgraded by repetition.
Animal or laboratory findings only. Marked as such without exception. A result in mice is not a result in people, and conflating the two is the most common error in writing about this subject.
Asserted but unstudied. Widely repeated claims with no supporting research at all. These are named as unstudied rather than left to sound plausible by association.

Where a claim is popular and unsupported, the article traces where it appears to have originated — a misread paper, a marketing line, an extrapolation from a related compound. That is usually more useful to a reader than a flat contradiction.

#Sources

Primary literature first. Peer-reviewed papers, trial registries, regulatory filings, and pharmacopoeial standards, linked to the source rather than to a summary of it.
Sample size, duration, and funding are stated where known. A positive result from twelve subjects over four weeks means something different from one from four hundred over a year.
Preprints and conference abstracts are identified as unreviewed.
Forum posts, anecdotal reports, and vendor materials are not treated as evidence. They are occasionally cited as evidence that a claim exists and is circulating — a different thing, and described that way.
Where no usable source exists, the article says so plainly instead of filling the gap with confident-sounding language.

#What the research does not show

Most articles carry a section on the limits of the evidence, because it is usually the most useful part.

A study can find a real effect on a marker that does not matter. It can be too small to detect harm. It can measure the wrong endpoint, run too briefly to see what counts, or be funded by a party with an interest in the result. When an article says the evidence is weak or the question is open, that is a finding, not a hedge.