Editorial policy

How a page is written

Each compound page is built to the same structure: chemical identity, mechanism as characterised in primary literature, an explicit statement of what that literature does and does not establish, handling and storage practice, and the analytical documentation a purchaser should require.

The structure is deliberate. It puts the limits of the evidence on the same page as the claims, in the same typeface, rather than in a disclaimer at the bottom.

How we treat evidence

Where a finding is well replicated we say so. Where a literature originates from a single research group, has never been independently replicated, or failed its clinical endpoint, we say that too, on the page, in the section where the claim appears.

Three examples of what this looks like in practice. AOD9604's page states that its phase IIb obesity endpoint was not met. Epithalon's page states that almost its entire evidence base comes from one institute and that independent replication is very limited. RAD-150's page states that there is essentially no peer-reviewed literature on it as a distinct chemical entity and that the page exists for completeness rather than because the compound is well understood.

We would rather publish a page that undermines its own compound than one that flatters it.

How we treat chemical identifiers

CAS numbers, molecular formulae, molecular weights and sequences are stated only where they have been verified. Where a value has not been verified, the specification panel reads Confirm on current lot CoA/SDS rather than displaying a number.

This is not hedging. A wrong CAS number on a supplier page gets copied into a purchase order, a notebook and eventually a methods section, and it is worse than a blank field.

Batch-variable properties — physical form, salt form, water content, validated storage — defer to the lot documentation by default, because they are properties of a lot and not of a compound.

Review

Pages carry a published date, a last-reviewed date and the scope of that review. Scientific review covers identity, mechanism, the stated limitations of the literature, handling statements and references.

Where a page has not yet been through named scientific review, the editorial block on that page says so rather than implying a review that has not happened.

What we will not publish

Dosing protocols, administration guidance, cycle or stacking advice, or any other instruction oriented towards human use. Not as an appendix, not on request.

Therapeutic claims for any compound listed here.

Before-and-after imagery, testimonials, or any presentation that implies human use without stating it. Research use only describes the whole presentation of the material, not one line of small print.

Invented authorship, invented credentials, or a citation we have not read.

Conflicts of interest

Apex Sciences Labs has a commercial interest in the compounds it documents: enquiries generated by these pages may lead to supply, and peptide enquiries may be fulfilled by our partner Avid Peptides, from which we may benefit commercially.

You should read every page on this site with that in mind. It is the reason the evidence-limits sections exist and the reason we publish the unflattering findings alongside the favourable ones — but a disclosure is not a neutrality guarantee, and independent verification of anything that matters to your work remains sensible.