This category was built on overclaim. Our answer is a method you can audit: an evidence grade on every molecule, a separate plain-English verdict on whether you can actually get it, and an honest line about what we still don't know.
The grade answers one question only, how strong is the human evidence?It is not a recommendation, a safety score, or a measure of how exciting a molecule sounds. It tracks the quality and quantity of studies in people.
These grades measure how much human evidence exists — not whether a molecule is good, safe, or worth your interest. A low grade usually means the studies haven't been done yet.
Evidence and overclaim are different measurements. The grade tracks the evidence only, so a compound with thin data is graded D whether or not its marketing is inflated. Where claims outrun the data, we say so in the molecule's own words — not by moving its grade.
A grade never moves because a compound became popular, because its marketing got louder, or because we sell it. It moves when the human evidence changes, through the logged path below.
"Is the evidence strong?" and "Can I actually get it?" are different questions, so we answer them with two separate signals, and we never let one stand in for the other. A molecule can be grade A and still not be available; another can be available now and still be grade D.
How good the human science is. Owned by this Knowledge Base and our medical reviewer.
Whether you can legitimately get it today. Owned by the FDA Tracker, the Knowledge Base consumes it, never invents it.
Most of what we cover are true peptides. A few, NAD+, rapamycin, metformin, are related longevity compounds, not peptides. We cover them because people ask, and we label them plainly so nothing here is ever misrepresented as something it isn't.
Grades are dated, not permanent. A new randomized human trial, a published replication, a safety signal, or a regulatory action can move a grade or a verdict, and we timestamp every change. When the FDA Tracker logs a status change, the matching monograph is flagged for a freshness pass.
Every change to a grade, dated, with the reason and what would move it again. Grades are dated judgements, not permanent facts, and this is the audit trail for them.
Corrected an inconsistency between surfaces: some carried E, others D. D is correct under the published rubric. Dihexa's evidence is preclinical, with human data essentially absent — which is what D describes: animal and lab evidence, human trials still to come. E is reserved for compounds whose marketing claims outrun the data, which is a different measurement and does not apply here.
What would change it: Published placebo-controlled human efficacy data.