Editorial standards

Every page about BPC-157 is produced in two passes: a research pass that drafts claims only from primary sources, and a verification pass in which every citation is fetched directly from PubMed, FDA, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubChem, or WADA and the claim is checked against the fetched text before publication. Study conclusions are reported with the species they came from; an animal finding is never presented as a human result. This site is produced by a research and editorial team using automated retrieval tools under human direction. No physician or clinician has reviewed this content, and we do not claim medical review: content that names no reviewer has had none.

Claims about BPC-157 may cite only: peer-reviewed journals indexed in PubMed/PMC, FDA sources (Drugs@FDA, openFDA, fda.gov documents), ClinicalTrials.gov records, PubChem, the WADA Prohibited List, and national anti-doping authorities. Peptide-vendor pages, supplement blogs, forums, and press releases are banned as sources. Study titles are quoted verbatim in references. Where evidence does not exist, we say so explicitly rather than borrowing a nearby claim: absence statements (no human RCT, no established dose) are themselves cited to the reviews or registry queries that document the absence.

Every page displays its published and last-updated dates. This reference is re-reviewed when any of the following happens: FDA completes rulemaking on the July 2026 compounding proposal, WADA publishes a new Prohibited List (annually), results post for NCT07437547 or any BPC-157 trial, or a new peer-reviewed human study appears. Independent of triggers, the citation set is re-verified on a quarterly cycle and dead links are repaired or replaced.

If you find an error, use the contact link in the site footer. Corrections are assessed against primary sources, and substantive fixes are noted on the affected page with the date of the change. Disagreements between sources are surfaced in the text rather than silently resolved; where we know a published review contradicts a primary source (for example, on WADA status), we say so and follow the primary source.

Site statistics are counts of this site's own content, computed at build time from the evidence pack and recomputable from the rendered pages: the study total is the number of rows in the study-results table; species counts census the species column of that table; the citation total is the number of entries in the numbered reference list; the peer-reviewed and governmental percentage is a source-type census of the same list. Counts of external literature (for example, how many articles a systematic review screened) are always attributed to their source and never presented as our own measurements.

We do not publish fabricated testimonials or reviews, display trust badges we have not earned, invent reviewer names, or show member counts we cannot measure. The editorial evidence and citations are not supplied by a product vendor. The site does present a commercial care option, clearly separated from educational claims; a completed order may generate revenue for the site owner. Educational content is not medical advice.