Sourcing and standards

DosingReference publishes dosing references, reconstitution guides and research backed background on peptides. This page lays out how that content is made, sourced, checked and kept current, so you can judge it for yourself and decide how much weight to give it.

Our aim

The most accurate, clearly sourced and genuinely useful peptide reference we can build. Most peptide information online comes from forums, social posts, clinic marketing or vendor pages, usually with nothing to show where a number came from, how solid the evidence behind it is, or whether it is even safe. We exist to raise that bar. We are an educational publisher, not a clinic, a pharmacy or a peptide seller. We do not diagnose, treat, prescribe or sell. The content is here to help you see what the published evidence actually says, and where it runs out.

How we source

Every substantive claim, dosing ranges, mechanisms, side effects, pharmacokinetics and safety, comes from one or more of these.

Primary sources, which we lean on first. Peer reviewed journal articles in indexed biomedical journals, including trials, clinical pharmacology studies and reviews. FDA prescribing information and labeling for approved peptide products like semaglutide, tirzepatide and tesamorelin. And trial registrations and results from registries like ClinicalTrials.gov, especially for compounds still in development.

Secondary sources, as support. Endocrine and specialty society guidelines, government and regulatory publications like FDA safety notices and the WADA list, and standard pharmacology references.

What we do not treat as sources. Forum and social posts, vendor marketing beyond plain product specs, anecdotes without published backing, unverified AI output and other peptide sites unless they cite primary sources we can check ourselves.

How a page is built

1. Research first. Before writing, we search the literature and the label databases, and for dosing we pull ranges from trials, prescribing information and guidelines, favoring human data over animal data wherever it exists.
2. Draft with citations in place. Sources go in at the point of each claim, not bolted on afterward. The evidence drives the content.
3. Check accuracy. Dosing ranges are verified against the cited source, unit conversions are recomputed, and the reconstitution math is run a second time.
4. Publish and keep watching. Pages are not final. We update them as new evidence lands, labels change or errors surface.

Grading the evidence

Not all evidence is equal, and you deserve to see the difference. We separate strong evidence, backed by multiple trials, reviews or approved labeling, which we state plainly. Moderate evidence, from limited trials, observational work or expert consensus, which we frame as research suggests rather than settled fact. Preliminary or preclinical evidence, from animal or very early human work, which we flag as such and note the gap to proven human outcomes. And insufficient evidence, where a popular online claim lacks real published support, which we say directly instead of repeating it. Someone who knows a claim rests on a single mouse study can weigh it very differently from someone told it is proven.

Who writes it

Pages are written and maintained by Sasha Wilson, the site's founder and editor, an independent researcher with a hands-on interest in peptide science who is currently working toward ABAC peptide certification. We do not borrow credentials we cannot stand behind, and we do not claim to be a medical provider or to offer independent medical review. Where a page cites a researcher or a study, that means their published work is a source, not that they wrote, reviewed, sponsored or endorsed our page. Each page shows when it was last reviewed.

Updates and corrections

We re review content over time, prioritizing compounds with active development where new data can shift dosing, high traffic pages and anything a reader flags. If we find an error, whether a math slip, a bad citation, a misread study or any other inaccuracy, we fix it promptly, and for anything that touches dosing or safety we note the change and its date at the top of the page. If you spot a problem, tell us with the page and a description and we will look into it.

Links and independence

External links serve two jobs, citations to the evidence behind a claim and cross references to regulatory or authoritative documents. They are for your verification and are not endorsements. Some pages also carry supplier links to third party research use only products, because readers often ask where to source material for research, and a reference is more useful than silence. Some of those are affiliate links, and DosingReference earns a commission on qualifying orders. That never buys editorial control. No vendor reviews or approves our content, no one pays for placement or a favorable write up, and we do not drop safety information to suit anyone. If the evidence shows a risk or a limit, it goes in.

What this is not

• Not a medical provider. Nothing here is medical advice, diagnosis or treatment, and there is no patient relationship.
• Not a pharmacy. We do not sell, compound or dispense anything.
• Not a research organization. We do not run trials, sponsor research or collect patient data.
• Not a substitute for professional guidance. For any clinical or therapeutic question, consult a qualified healthcare professional.

Last reviewed in 2026.