Every claim had to survive
being attacked.
Most peptide references repeat whatever they found. Ours is built the opposite way — around a pass whose only job is to refute each claim. What you read here is what was left standing.
Three passes. Two of them try to stop it.
Cross-reference 50–100 independent sources.
For every dosing and scheduling claim, we read widely — and we never let the sources blur together. Each one is filed as exactly what it is: peer-reviewed trial data, a sponsor's own protocol document, a vendor guide with something to sell, or plain community convention. Knowing which bucket a claim comes from is half the work.
A second pass built to refute the claim.
A fresh reviewer tries to knock the claim down. Is it genuinely corroborated by independent sources — or does the whole trail lead back to one origin, repeated across a dozen commercially-linked sites until it looks like consensus? That's citation laundering, and it's the failure mode we hunt for. The default verdict is not confirmed; a claim has to earn its way past that.
Only the survivors ship.
Claims that make it through both passes go in the book. The ones that don't are deleted — not softened, not hedged, not quietly repeated. When we get something wrong after publishing, we correct it in the open. The reference is smaller and slower for it, and that's the point.
How much data exists is a different question from how well it works.
Every compound carries two independent signals. Keeping them separate is deliberate — a compound can have thin clinical data and a glowing community track record, or the reverse. Collapse them into one number and you lose the most useful thing on the card.
How much real human data stands behind it. T1 is established and well-trialled; T4 is theoretical; TN marks non-peptides. This tier moves only when the literature does.
How consistently people actually report it working — a 0–100 score with letter bands. This is lived experience, not trial evidence, and it can disagree with the tier. That disagreement is information.
Discovery legends get mythologised too.
Book Three tells the origin stories — and every central “fun fact” gets the same adversarial verify pass a dosing claim does. Each one lands a discrete, scannable verdict, so you always know how much to trust the tale.
Most came back embellished — a wrong date, an unconfirmed anecdote, an inflated multiplier — each with a specific, non-generic correction rather than a shrug.
We state both, clearly labelled — and never quietly pick one.
Sometimes the official trial protocol and real-world community practice genuinely differ. When they do, hiding one of them would be dishonest. So you get both, side by side, each labelled for what it is.
What the sponsor's protocol or approved label actually says — e.g. Retatrutide dosed once weekly, exactly as trialled.
What people who use it have converged on, when it's genuinely documented — e.g. splitting that weekly dose 3-day/4-day to blunt the peak and ease nausea.