ABOUT
Pricing Findings, Not Products
An independent reading desk built on one idea: a claim should be believed in proportion to what somebody paid to establish it.
What this desk is, and what the name means
Peptide Bargains is an independent literature digest covering research peptide fundamentals. It sells nothing, stocks nothing, quotes no prices, names no vendors and recommends no dose to anyone. Anybody arriving here looking for a discount has found the wrong kind of bargain.
The name is a deliberate inversion, and the site is built around it. In this field the cheapest commodity by a wide margin is a confident claim. Claims are free to produce, infinitely reproducible, and there is a glut of them. The genuinely expensive commodity is evidence: enough people, enough time, a randomised comparison group, and an endpoint that matters rather than one that was convenient. A bargain, on this desk, is a finding whose underlying evidence cost far more than the claim resting on it. The far commoner case — a claim that badly outruns what was paid for it — is what this site is designed to make visible.
So the currency here is evidence, and every page asks the same question of every assertion: what did establishing this actually cost, and how much belief does that purchase honestly buy?
How a finding gets graded
Four levers, applied identically to all three compounds.
Sample size. How many people were studied. A result in tens of people and a result in tens of thousands are different objects, however similar the headline reads, because small studies must report larger effects to reach significance and therefore tend to overstate.
Duration. How long participants were followed. A marker measured over weeks and a body followed over more than a year are different purchases.
Comparator. Whether anyone was randomly assigned to a group that did not receive the compound. This is the single most expensive component of a trial and the one that does the most work; without it, a study reports what happened rather than what the compound did.
Endpoint. What was measured at the end. A blood level, a gene-expression table and a stroke are three different currencies, and they do not convert at par. The step from a surrogate marker to a clinical outcome is where most of this field's overvaluation happens.
Nothing else enters the grade. Not how often a claim is repeated, not how mechanistically satisfying it sounds, not how confidently it is stated.
How the sources are handled
Every substantive claim on this site traces to a numbered source on the references page. Each of the three compounds is drawn from a signed, citation-audited compound corpus, and this site composes from those corpora rather than researching independently — which means the reference list is fixed, verified, and identical to the one the underlying research file carries.
Quantitative claims are cited in place. Where a figure circulating in popular summaries differs from what the source actually reports, the source's own number is used and the discrepancy is stated — the gene-count figure on the GHK-Cu page is the clearest example. Where a number appears in the wider literature but not in this site's verified reference set, it is described qualitatively rather than quoted, because an uncheckable number is worse than no number.
Community and user reports appear on two of the three compound pages. They are always labelled anecdotal, not clinical evidence, and they never carry doses. They are included because the patterns are consistent and informative as a contrast with trial data, not because they weigh the same.
Where the reading stops
This is not medical advice and it is not a substitute for a clinician. Nothing here recommends that any person take any compound, and no dose on this site is a suggestion — where a dose appears, it is the dose used in a cited study, reported as the study reported it.
The desk also declines several jobs on purpose. It does not evaluate or compare suppliers, sources or products of any kind. It does not price anything in money. It does not translate research findings into personal protocols. And it does not resolve questions the literature has left open; where the record is thin, the pages say so and stop, which is the only honest thing a digest can do with an unbought claim.
Corrections are welcome, particularly on citations. The contact page explains what the desk can and cannot take on.