How to read the evidence
Nobody funds a trial on a molecule they cannot own.
That single sentence explains most of what looks like missing evidence in this field, and it is the most important thing to understand before reading any page here. A thin trial record on an unpatentable compound is a fact about how drug development is paid for. It is not a finding about the molecule.
Where the money actually goes
A randomised controlled trial in a few hundred people costs millions of dollars, and the money almost always comes from whoever will own the resulting drug. That is not a conspiracy, it is just how the system is financed. A company spends the money because a patent lets it recover the money.
Now consider what most of this catalogue actually is. A fragment of a protein your body already makes. A sequence published in the 1970s. A substance sold cheaply by a dozen suppliers. None of those can be owned, so no sponsor appears, so the trial never happens, and the published record simply stops wherever academic funding ran out. Usually that is the animal stage.
Read that record naively and you conclude the compound is unproven. Read it with the economics in view and you conclude something much narrower and much more accurate: nobody with the money to answer the question had a reason to ask it.
So we publish what does exist
The mainstream reflex is to treat the absence of a randomised trial as the end of the conversation. We think that is lazy, and it throws away most of what is actually known. So this site reports every kind of evidence there is, labelled for exactly what it is, and lets you weigh it yourself.
- Human trials348 cited
- What was measured in people, with the participant counts. The strongest thing we can show you, and on many pages it does not exist.
- Animal studies121 cited
- Named by species, never dismissed. For an unpatentable compound this is frequently the whole published record, and a mouse result is a real result about a mouse.
- Mechanism and cell work37 cited
- How the thing is thought to act. It explains plausibility, it does not demonstrate an effect in a person, and we keep those two ideas apart.
- What people reporton most profiles
- Uncontrolled self-report from the community. It is not evidence that anything works. It is often the only account of what to actually expect, and dropping it would be its own kind of dishonesty.
45 of the 192 compounds here have no human study cited at all. They are profiled in full rather than hidden, because knowing precisely what has and has not been tested in a person is the thing you came for.
Where this argument stops
The funding argument explains why evidence is missing. It does not manufacture evidence, and it cuts both ways with exactly equal force. With no trial, a compound that does nothing and a compound that causes rare harm both look identical to a compound with no reported problems. Absence of evidence is genuine absence, in both directions, and nothing on this site should be read as a hidden endorsement.
One related claim is worth naming because it circulates constantly: that peptides are inherently low risk because the body already produces them. Origin does not determine risk, dose and context do. Insulin is endogenous, your body makes it continuously, and it is among the most dangerous drugs in any hospital. The same goes for thyroid hormone, cortisol and growth hormone. In this catalogue, MK-677 is a peptide-adjacent compound that failed Phase 3, and several others carry real documented adverse effects. Those are evidence too, and they stay on the page.
None of that makes the economics argument weaker. It makes it survivable, which matters more. An argument that overreaches on safety hands a critic one sentence to dismantle, and the credible part goes down with it.
Not approved is paperwork, not biology
A compound can be unapproved because a trial tested it and it lost to placebo, or because no company ever filed anything. Those are opposite situations wearing the same label, and this site separates them wherever the record allows. Regulatory status tells you what a government has signed off. It does not tell you what is true.
What we are actually claiming
Only this: we have read the studies, we list every one of them under the claim it supports, we say what species it was run in and how many people were in it, and we never compress that into a grade. You are not being asked to trust our judgement. You are being handed the sources and the reasoning so you can disagree with us.