I read the studies and write down what was tested, in whom, and what happened. When nobody has tested something, I say 'nobody has tested this' — that sentence is the whole brand. The suppliers I link sell research materials, and I write about them that way. Two suppliers, both disclosed, both used by real women I know. And I never tell you what to put in your body.
How I read
Every page starts the same way: what is this sold for, what has actually been studied, and was any of it studied in women like us. Those are three different questions and most peptide sites collapse them into one warm paragraph. I keep them apart on purpose.
A human trial, a rat study, a petri dish and a product page are four different kinds of information. I label each one as what it is, because blurring them together is exactly how this whole category earned its reputation. When a study's authors sell the ingredient, I say so. When a trial finished ten years ago and never posted results, I say that too, because it's usually the most decision-relevant fact on the page.
What 'research use only' means here
The suppliers I link sell compounds labelled for research use. That's the legal reality of this category and I'm not going to wink at it or pretend otherwise. So on this site, I write about vials the way you'd write about anything you research: what's in them, who tested them, what the paperwork says, what they cost. My friends and I are a very curious group of women with a shared spreadsheet. What anyone does with their reading is between them and their doctor.
That's also why you'll never see a dose on this site, or the words 'take this.' Not because a lawyer told me to. Because I'm not qualified, and neither is the med-spa down the road.
What actually happened at the FDA in July 2026
You'll see headlines claiming the FDA 'cleared' or 'approved' BPC-157 and friends. Here's what happened. In April 2026 the FDA removed a list of peptides from its 'Category 2' list — the one that flags significant safety risk. In July, an advisory committee voted on seven of them. The agency's own scientists had recommended a no on every one of them; the committee went the other way on six, by thin margins, and said no to DSIP.
None of that made any of them legal to compound. An advisory vote is advisory. Legality needs a proposed rule, a comment period and a final rule; the last comparable process took the FDA more than two years. Until then, nothing changed for you, whatever the content farms are publishing. I'll update this page when it does.
Three rules I hold myself to
- Publish the misses. The forum comment that says 'I tried three of them and got the most relief from my HRT' is on this site because nobody else prints it.
- Two suppliers, both used. No list of twelve 'top vendors' I've never ordered from. ZestyRat because I trust it completely; Amino Club because it's the group's genuine second vote. Both affiliate links, disclosed on every page.
- Say when it's nothing. Half this site is me telling you a compound my own supplier sells has no evidence behind it. That's what makes the other half believable.
Where to go next
Pick the thing that's actually bothering you on the homepage. If you're already on a GLP-1, start there. If you're on HRT, read the doctor questions before anything else. And if you just want to know where we order, it's always ZestyRat, and I explain why with a straight face.
Amino Club is the one that looks like it was designed for us — soft branding, ISO 17025 third-party COAs, US shipping. It's the group chat's second vote, and the code SHAUN22 works there. Why it's number two, not number one →
Nothing on this page is medical advice or a recommendation to use anything. The compounds discussed are sold as research materials and are not FDA-approved for the uses people talk about. I read; I don't prescribe. Talk to a clinician who knows your history.