Our Research Methodology
Our methodology is designed to keep a source’s finding, a provider’s offer, and an editorial conclusion distinct. It records what we checked, what the record supports, and what remains unknown.
On this page
Scope of the research
This release covers BPC-157, TB-500, and sermorelin in the United States. Each claim is bounded by the exact substance or form, route, jurisdiction, and date described in its source. A finding about one substance or route is not automatically applied to another.
Our coverage focuses on published access records and provider offers. It is a selected comparison, not a complete directory of every product, clinic, pharmacy, or available service.
We do not treat products marketed as supplements or sold outside prescription care as equivalent to the prescription-care offers covered in the comparison.
How we use evidence
We prefer primary and official records. Each type of source is used for a limited purpose:
| Source | What we use it for | What it does not establish by itself |
|---|---|---|
| Codified regulations | The legal text and lists in force on the stated date. | How a rule applies to a specific patient, product, or transaction. |
| Agency pages and policy documents | An agency’s published statements, policy, and actions. | A broader approval or conclusion beyond the document’s stated scope. |
| Staff or advisory materials | The analysis or information presented in that material. | A final agency action when the document is not itself a final action. |
| Trial registry records | Information submitted to a registry by a study sponsor. | Active enrollment, study quality, a treatment authorization, or a clinical outcome. |
| Provider pages | What the provider publicly states about its services, prices, and terms. | Independent licensing, pharmacy inspection, product testing, or clinical endorsement. |
We keep a claim tied to the record that supports it and identify the relevant date and location within the source when available. A source citation does not establish facts beyond the source’s scope. We do not publish a substantive claim without support in an identifiable record.
For the current release, records checked on October 13, 2026 include six FDA documents, the codified 503A bulks list, three ClinicalTrials.gov records, and five provider pages. One registry record whose own summary describes the study as fictional is excluded from findings and identified in the source material. The checks used AI assistance; no clinician, pharmacist, or regulatory specialist reviewed this release. See our editorial standards.
How we assess access claims
We break an access claim into specific requirements rather than treating access as a single yes-or-no question. For each requirement, we identify the applicable evidence, the check performed, the finding, and what information could change it.
Finding labels describe the specific criterion and never amount to an overall approval:
- Supported
- The cited evidence shows the requirement is met.
- Contradicted
- The cited evidence shows the requirement is not met.
- Unresolved
- The evidence we have does not settle it, or it needs review we have not obtained.
- Conflicting
- Sources disagree, and we show both.
- Not applicable
- This does not provide an access basis, whatever its outcome.
We use “supported” only when the cited record supports the specific statement or criterion beside it. It is not a finding that a product, provider, or treatment is approved, safe, effective, or appropriate for an individual. When the records conflict or leave a material question unanswered, we show that uncertainty rather than infer a conclusion.
An interpretation that would require qualified review we have not obtained remains unresolved. See the access summaries in Find My Peptide Path.
How we compare provider offers
- We compare the exact published service, not a broad treatment category. A consultation is not a medication plan, and different arrangements are not presented as equivalent.
- Each price stays beside its purchase unit, billing period, and conditions.
- A charge the provider does not disclose is unknown, not $0. “Not disclosed” does not mean “not charged.”
- A total is incomplete when a required charge is unknown. We do not estimate a monthly or course cost by assuming an unlisted quantity or dose.
What we do not verify
Our current work is based on published records. We have not independently checked clinician or pharmacy licenses, contacted providers, inspected pharmacies, made purchases, tested products, or completed state-by-state coverage checks. We have not identified the dispensing pharmacy for every offer. We do not monitor source pages continuously.
No clinician, pharmacist, or regulatory specialist has reviewed this release. We do not present an editorial source check as clinical, pharmacy, or regulatory review.
When a field has not been researched, we do not turn the missing information into a positive or negative finding. The page shows the limits of what is known from the published material.
Selection, order, and commercial relationships
Providers in the current comparison are listed alphabetically. The order is not a ranking, and inclusion is not an endorsement. The comparison is limited to published offers we can cite.
Current provider links are unpaid. No provider pays for inclusion, placement, or findings. Any future commercial relationship must be disclosed beside the affected links and on How we make money. Payment is not evidence for an editorial finding.
Updates and corrections
We update a finding when a cited source changes, a new relevant primary record appears, a provider changes a published price or term, or a reader reports an error we can verify. A page shows when its sources were checked.
Rechecking a source without changing a finding updates the source-check date, not the substantive update date. A correction does not silently replace a finding: material corrections are noted on the affected page.
To report an error, use Contact and corrections.