How we research

Our standards

Every guide on Pet Peptides Club is held to the same rules:

• Research-referenced. Health claims link to primary sources — PubMed studies and reviews — so you can read the evidence yourself, not just take our word.
• Honest about the stage of evidence. We say plainly when data is strong (like collagen in canine osteoarthritis), when it's promising but early (like BPC-157), and when it's mostly in other species. "Studied for" is never dressed up as "proven to treat."
• Vet-first, always. Nothing here is veterinary advice. Every guide points you back to your own veterinarian for the decision, the dose, and the monitoring.
• No treatment or cure claims. The compounds we cover are research-grade and not FDA-approved for pets. We never claim they treat, cure, or prevent any condition.
• No fabricated authority. We are not veterinarians and we don't pretend to be. We don't invent credentials, fake reviews, or "vet-formulated" badges.
• Quality-first on products. We only point to compounds that are third-party (HPLC) tested with a batch Certificate of Analysis.

How we use sources

When a guide makes a factual claim about what a peptide is studied for, we anchor it to published research — most often on PubMed. Because most peptide research is pre-clinical (rodent studies) or in species other than your pet, we say so directly. A study showing an effect in rats is context for a conversation with your vet, not evidence that it will help your dog or cat. We would rather under-claim and be trusted than over-claim and be wrong.

What we will never do

Who writes this