Peptide & emerging-therapeutic intelligence
Know what the evidence actually says.
Research compounds, inspect the human evidence, track trials and follow regulatory change — with every claim traced to its source.
The distinction nothing else makes
Popularity is not evidence.
How widely an ingredient appears in products and how well it is supported in humans are different measurements. Conflating them is how a peptide ends up in a thousand serums on the strength of two unpublished conference posters. We show the two separately, always, and every rating opens to show exactly why it was assigned.
Both measurements are real. Only one of them is science.
Pulse
Recent developments
Australia — Scheduled as a performance and image enhancing drug in Australia.
Recorded as stated in the research package. No document, scheduling instrument or date was retrievable, so this row carries the fact and nothing more.
Covers efficacyFDA — Marketed in the United States as a dietary supplement under DSHEA; no FDA warnings located.
The US dietary supplement framework means the compound reaches the market without pre-market review of either efficacy or safety. No FDA warning or enforcement action against creatine was located in this pass.
Covers efficacyFDA — FDA staff review found a "lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of AOD-9604" and concluded "the evaluation criteria weigh against placing" either form on the 503A Bulks List.
FDA states the mechanism is unknown and identified no human pharmacokinetic studies for any route. Nonclinical gaps are substantial: no acute toxicity, reproductive, developmental or carcinogenicity studies, and no subcutaneous or transdermal toxicity data — and subcutaneous injection is how the compound is sold. Six-month rat and nine-month monkey studies showed changes in osteocalcin levels and liver vacuolation, which FDA considered possible safety signals, and genotoxicity results (Ames, micronucleus, chromosome aberration) were equivocal and could not be dismissed. FDA concluded neither form is "physically and chemically well characterized" and that nonclinical studies were "too limited in scope" to inform safety for the nominated routes. FAERS and CAERS searches returned no reports and FDA states this does not establish safety. It found no AOD-9604 products in outsourcing facility reports from 2017 to 2023, though online sources show clinics and a compounding pharmacy marketing injectable and oral products. On the nominated osteoarthritis and cartilage indication, FDA states it "has so far only been tested in preclinical studies."
Covers efficacySource hierarchy
An answer you can check, line by line.
Tier A
FDA, registries, prescribing information, randomised trials, systematic reviews.
Tier C
Animal, in-vitro and mechanistic work. Labelled as such, never as human evidence.
Tier D/E
Community and commercial sources. Visible, separated, never ranked above science.