An independent reading of the peptide literature

What this site is

mybiopeptides is an independent editorial digest of published research on peptides. It sells nothing, supplies nothing, and has no clinical practice attached to it. Its entire output is summary and citation.

It is organised around a single question that most peptide writing skips: why is this compound called what it is called? That turns out to be a more productive entry point than it sounds. Peptide names come from at least five systems — generic names built from standard stems, company development codes, descriptive laboratory acronyms, systematic chemical descriptions, and informal coinages — and the system a name belongs to reliably indicates how far the compound travelled through regulatory review, which in turn indicates how much scrutiny its evidence base has had.

Five compounds are covered, chosen because between them they demonstrate every one of those registers: semaglutide, tirzepatide, CJC-1295, BPC-157 and PT-141. Two are approved medicines with large outcome trials. Two are unapproved research chemicals whose human evidence amounts to a handful of small studies. One is both at once, depending on which of its two names is in use.

How to read it

Every compound page opens with a plain-English summary written to be understood without a background in pharmacology, then moves into the technical detail beneath it. The plain layer is additive — nothing is simplified away below it.

Each page then separates two kinds of material that are frequently blurred together elsewhere, and the distinction is the most important thing on this site.

The first kind is published research: trial results, mechanistic studies, pharmacokinetic characterisation, regulatory labelling. Every quantitative statement drawn from it carries a bracketed number keyed to the references, and the source is listed there in full.

The second kind is community-reported experience — what people describe in reviews and research-use forums. It is included because leaving it out would misrepresent what is actually known about the unapproved compounds, where user reports are a large share of the available information. It is always introduced with the phrase anecdotal, not clinical evidence, it never carries a dose, and it should never be weighed against the trial data. A widely repeated report is still a report.

Where the two disagree, both are shown. Where the corpus behind this site does not support a claim, the claim is not made — and where something genuinely is not recorded, such as the origin of the numeral in BPC-157, the page says so rather than supplying a plausible-sounding derivation.

Editorial stance

Four rules govern what appears here.

No dosing, for anyone. Doses administered in cited studies are reported as study doses, and labelled doses as what a regulator's label specifies. Neither is a recommendation, and no page suggests an amount for any reader to take.

Generic names lead; trademarks appear as evidence. Compounds are called by their international nonproprietary names where they have them, and by their research codes where they do not, because the generic name is the one that survives across manufacturers, formulations and jurisdictions. Manufacturer trademarks are named where they demonstrate the point — semaglutide's three, and the one belonging to the compound also called PT-141 — since a site about naming that hid a whole naming register would be a poor reference. They are never presented as endorsements, and this project has no relationship with any manufacturer. One exception is deliberate and flagged on the page itself: tirzepatide is described by its generic name alone, because its signed source record directs that, and a source record outranks an editorial preference here.

Uncertainty stated, not smoothed. The clearest example is BPC-157, whose preclinical record is genuinely substantial and whose human record consists of three pilot studies. Reporting the first without the second would leave a materially false impression.

Nothing is for sale. There is no shop, no supplier list and no referral arrangement. Buy-intent queries are explicitly outside what this site covers, and the pages carry no purchasing guidance of any kind. Enthusiasm about a mechanism is not a recommendation to obtain the compound.