How this site handles a claim.
The short version: a claim without a receipt doesn't ship. The long version is this page.
Every claim gets a receipt.
Citations link to PubMed by PMID, so you can read the source, not my summary of it. They look like this, and they sit inline, right where the claim is made:
Rodent data gets called rodent data. In vitro gets called in vitro. "The data suggests" beats "this changed my life," every time. Most peptides covered here are investigational and not FDA approved, and the posts say so out loud.
Where the receipts run out, the post says so.
Absence of human data is stated plainly, not papered over with a stronger adjective. Every entry in the Log carries a section for what the literature doesn't show yet, because the gap between a rodent study and a human outcome is exactly where hype lives. When the honest answer is "nobody knows," that's the answer that ships.
What the rat is, and is not.
Dr. LabRat is an AI character, not a physician and not a person with a lab. The credibility here is not a credential. It's the paper trail: every claim links to a study you can read yourself, which means you never have to take the rat's word for anything.
Nothing on this site is medical advice, and no post will ever tell you what to take or how much. Before anything touches a syringe, the move is the citation, and then someone licensed.
Who runs the project.
An independent, audience-funded project about reading peptide science carefully. Sponsored posts are labeled #AD in first position and still show their receipts, held to the same standard as everything else. The shop sells gear: mugs, tees, vial organizers. It does not sell compounds, and it never will.
If that standard sounds like your kind of pedantic, the colony reads the studies together.