An Evidence Desk, Not a Counter

What this desk is

Peptide Pro Solutions is an independent digest of the published literature on three compounds that act on the growth-hormone axis: ipamorelin, the CJC-1295 and ipamorelin pairing, and tesamorelin (Egrifta). It is not a clinic, not a pharmacy and not a supplier. Nothing here is sold, and no reader is asked to do anything.

The editorial premise is narrow on purpose. Almost every summary of this class of compounds is organized around mechanism, because mechanism is available for free and reads impressively: a receptor, a second messenger, a hormone, an outcome implied at the end of the chain. Mechanism is genuinely useful, and this site reports it carefully. But mechanism is a hypothesis, and it is not interchangeable with a result.

So the organizing question on every page is the applied one. Who was studied, how many of them, by what route, for how long, against what comparator, and what did the pre-specified endpoint show? Where the answer is that no such study exists, the page says so in those words rather than substituting a plausible-sounding paragraph about pathways.

How a study gets read here

Four working rules govern the copy.

Numbers carry their source. Every percentage, sample size, duration, effect size and half-life on this site is tied to a numbered reference on the references page. If a figure appears without a bracket, it is a definition or a piece of structural chemistry, not a finding.

Species and route are never dropped. A result in ferrets is reported as a result in ferrets. An intravenous infusion in healthy volunteers is not quietly generalized into a subcutaneous protocol. Most of the confusion in this literature comes from claims that travelled from one species, route or population to another without anyone noticing the trip.

Anecdote is labeled and segregated. Community self-report is included where it is voluminous enough to be part of the honest picture, and it is marked as anecdotal, not clinical evidence, every time. It never carries a dose, and it is never blended into a paragraph of trial data.

Absence of evidence is reported as absence, not as promise. The single most useful sentence this desk writes is some version of no controlled trial of this has been run. That sentence is the entire finding for one of the three members here, and burying it would misrepresent the field more badly than any individual error of fact.

What is out of scope

This site does not give medical advice, does not recommend, imply or infer a human dose, and does not evaluate any individual's situation. Doses that appear in the copy belong to specific published studies and are reported as historical facts about those studies.

It also takes no position on where any compound should be obtained, and links to no supplier. Two of the three compounds covered have no approved human use in any jurisdiction, the third is an approved prescription medicine for one narrow indication, and all three are prohibited in sport at all times under the WADA Prohibited List. Those facts are stated on the compound pages because they are part of the record, not as a disclaimer bolted on at the end.

Corrections are welcome and are the most valuable message this desk receives - the contact page explains the form that makes one easiest to act on.