Trust needs visible rules.

The page byline identifies the responsible author or publisher. When no individual author is named, Peptides Thai is the responsible editorial entity. General information about the site is available on our Who we are page.

Credentials are stated only when they are relevant and can be verified. We do not invent clinical experience, laboratory experience, professional titles, or first-hand product testing. A byline does not replace the need to inspect the linked evidence.

We prefer official regulators and health authorities for approval or legal status, trial registries for study status, peer-reviewed human research for clinical findings, and original research for mechanisms. Reviews can provide context, but they do not turn weak underlying evidence into strong evidence.

1. 01
   Official and primary sources

   Regulators, clinical registries, prescribing information, original studies, and issuing laboratories.

2. 02
   Evidence synthesis

   Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, consensus statements, and well-scoped narrative reviews.

3. 03
   Context only

   Supplier pages, news reports, community discussion, and other secondary descriptions are labeled and not used as proof of a medical or product-quality claim.

Articles distinguish findings in cells or animals from human research. Approved indications are separated from experimental or unapproved uses. Where the evidence is uncertain, incomplete, or contradictory, the language should show that limit.

The site does not provide diagnosis, treatment plans, dosing, administration protocols, or instructions for human self-experimentation. Educational content is not a substitute for qualified medical, scientific, legal, or regulatory advice.

Some pages link to external supplier catalogues so readers can check current availability and documentation. A catalogue listing does not establish product quality, approval, legality, or suitability for any purpose.

Supplier statements are labelled by their source and remain separate from independent evidence. Editorial conclusions should follow the strength and limits of the available research.

Source clarity

Product descriptions, availability, prices, and documents supplied by a seller are identified as supplier information.

Independence

A supplier cannot buy a favourable evidence conclusion, approval claim, safety claim, or product ranking.

Verification

Supplier documents and claims remain supplier-sourced unless their underlying evidence is independently authenticated.

No first-hand testing claim

We do not imply that we ordered, handled, sampled, or tested a product unless a page explicitly documents a real process and its limits.

We review factual statements against their cited sources and update articles when information needs to be corrected or clarified.

1. ReviewWe compare the challenged text with the cited source and stronger or more current evidence where available.
2. UpdateClear factual errors are corrected. Material changes should update the page date and include a correction note where the context would help readers.
3. ExplainIf evidence is genuinely mixed, the article should describe the disagreement instead of presenting certainty.