What didn't work.
Every page on this site that says "the evidence supports X" is paired with what it doesn't support. This is the cross-index — peptides with documented null trials, mechanism limits, or no human data at all.
Most peptide publications are written by people incentivized to say everything works. This list exists because that incentive is, on average, a bad guide to what actually does.
Documented null findings
These peptides are in the "works" column overall — but their literature includes specific null results, failed trials, or mechanism limits we think you should weigh before deciding.
No human data
These compounds have mechanistic or preclinical support, but no controlled human trials have established safety or efficacy for any indication. Anything you read about them outside an animal model is hypothesis.
Theoretical only
Limited human data exists but doesn't yet support strong conclusions. Treat any specific claim about these as directional — the empirical record is still maturing.
Our goal is that a curious reader can leave this site as well-informed as a thoughtful clinician would be after a few hours in PubMed. That requires showing them the failures, not just the wins. If we ever stop publishing this page, assume something has gone wrong with our editorial process.