Method
A legal posture on this index rests on primary records: FDA lists and advisory-committee proceedings, Federal Register actions, and, where the law's application is contested, analyses published by regulatory law practices. Commercial peptide sites, including those that track the same rulings, are treated as competitors' summaries and are not cited.
Evidence claims rest on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed index. Citations are verified against the database at writing time, never quoted from memory or from an aggregator; each monograph's reference list carries the identifiers a reader needs to check the record directly.
Every posture carries the date it was last verified, and the regulatory record on each monograph is a dated ledger. The ground moved twice in 2026; a statement about peptide law that does not say when it was true is not a statement. Where the FDA has yet to act on an advisory recommendation, the monograph shows that empty slot explicitly rather than leaving the question open.
Saying that no human trial exists is a measurement, not an impression. Such claims here are made by searching the index across the compound's name variants, with a control query confirming the instrument works, and the search is described in the monograph's references with the date it was run. A claim of absence without a described search is the commonest failure in this literature.
It does not adjudicate any named seller's legality; it states the law's shape and lets the record speak. It does not anticipate rulemaking: a recommended molecule is recorded as recommended and pending, whatever the market expects. And it does not attach medical advice to a regulatory reference; treatment decisions belong with a licensed clinician.