Editorial policy

We grade every peptide on two separate questions — how strong is the human evidence, and can you legally access it — using a fixed rubric, not opinion. This page publishes that rubric in full, including the exact decision tree, so you can check every grade against the rule that produced it.

Evidence Grade: the decision tree

The Evidence Grade answers one question: how strong is the human proof? It is assigned by walking these rules in order and stopping at the first one that fires. Affiliate status, hype, and popularity have no input.

  1. FDA-approved for at least one indication? → A
  2. Otherwise, at least two published Western peer-reviewed human RCTs? → A
  3. Otherwise, at least one real human clinical trial, or a prior FDA approval, or a foreign approval backed by Western-recognizable trials? → B
  4. Otherwise, human pilot/observational data, or foreign-only (e.g. Russian) approval with weak RCTs? → C
  5. Otherwise, only animal/preclinical data with no published human efficacy RCT? → D
  6. Otherwise, a human trial exists and was negative or null? → F
GradeWhat it means in plain English
AFDA-approved / proven in humans
BReal human trials, limited or historical
CEarly or foreign human data only
DAnimal studies only, unproven in humans
FTested in humans and failed

Why not a single 0–10 score? Because peptides are not comparable services — an FDA-approved drug and an animal-only research compound aren't points on one line. A blended number would manufacture a false "7.5" the gray market could screenshot. Two independent, individually-defensible outputs keep the axes honest.

Legal status: five factual states

The legal badge answers a different question: can you access this through a legal, supervised route right now? Every peptide is tagged with exactly one of these, as a matter of fact, not judgment:

Safety flag: green, amber, red

The firewall: grades are never influenced by affiliate status

This is the non-negotiable rule. The Evidence Grade and the legal badge are assigned by the rubric above and nothing else. A peptide we cannot monetize keeps the grade it earns — AOD-9604 is an F because it failed its human trial, full stop. A peptide with a lucrative legal access route never gets a grade lift because of it. Affiliate revenue can decide placement within a page; it can never decide a grade, a badge, or a verdict. Objective sections sort by the metric, not by who pays us.

Independence

No provider, pharmacy, or vendor we cover has input into our grades or rankings. We never link gray-market or "research use only" vial vendors, no matter what commission they offer — naming them for transparency is fine, sending you to them is not.

Corrections

We correct mistakes immediately when surfaced, even when the correction hurts an affiliate partner. Regulatory facts move fast in this niche — we re-verify FDA status, the PCAC docket, and cost anchors on a schedule, and pages carry a last-verified date. Email editorial@bestpeptideforthat.com.

Medical disclaimer

Best Peptide For That is an independent editorial directory, not a medical provider. We do not diagnose, treat, prescribe, or give dosing advice. Most peptides we cover are not FDA-approved. Peptide use can carry real risks, and gray-market sourcing carries more. Always consult a licensed healthcare provider about your specific situation. Information on this site is for general educational purposes only. See our methodology for how we source and verify claims.