This page details the process for researching, writing, reviewing, and correcting material on Retatrutide-Peptide.org. Since we discuss a drug still under investigation, the evidence base is evolving, and much online information consists of personal anecdotes or promotional content. These are the standards we adhere to.
Information sources
Facts are cited from sources in the following order of preference:
- Peer-reviewed trial publications the original reports from the retatrutide clinical trials.
- Trial registries ClinicalTrials.gov records for trial design, dosage arms, and status.
- Regulators the FDA for approval status, compounding regulations, and safety alerts.
- Government health bodies NIH, NIDDK, and other established institutions for background physiology.
We do not consider forum posts, vendor pages, influencer videos, or AI summaries as factual sources. When we describe anecdotal reports, as on our reviews pagewe explicitly mark such content as anecdote and indicate that it lacks verification.
Our approach to discussing an investigational drug
- All pages clearly note that retatrutide is not FDA-approved.
- Trial data are specifically attributed to the relevant trial, including phase and dose, and are never presented as typical outcomes.
- We intentionally use cautious language such as 'may,' 'in trials,' and 'as reported.' We never make outcome promises.
- We avoid publishing dosing schedules, administration guidance, or personal use instructions. The products we offer are meant for laboratory research exclusively.
- We refrain from sharing before-and-after images, named testimonials, or any visuals suggesting proof of results.
Medical review
Science pages are reviewed before publication and are rechecked whenever evidence or regulatory status changes. A review confirms that the content aligns with cited sources, uses appropriate hedging, and includes nothing that could be interpreted as personalized medical advice or directions for human consumption. Reviews are not endorsements of any product or vendor, and reviewers are not involved in sales.
Reviewed pages display the reviewer's name, credentials, and review date. Reviewers are identified on our authors and reviewers page.
Setup note: reviewer names and dates must be those of the actual clinicians involved in reviewing the content. A byline can only credit someone who genuinely reviewed the page.
Review schedule
| Content type | Review cadence | Also triggered by |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanism and pharmacology | Every 6 months | Any new peer-reviewed publication |
| Safety and side effects | Every 6 months | New safety alerts or FDA communications |
| FDA status and news | Every 3 months | Any regulatory or trial milestones |
| Comparisons and market | Every 12 months | Approval or pricing updates for a comparator compound |
Independence and advertising
We generate revenue when customers purchase research-grade materials from our store, as described on our about pageWe do not sell guest posts, nor do we accept payments to endorse specific vendors or labs, and no outside parties preview our content before release.
Corrections
When we make an error, we correct it openly and clearly. Substantive changes are flagged at the bottom of the page with the date and a brief note; typos and minor fixes are made without comment. To alert us to a mistake, email editorial@retatrutide-peptide.org including the page URL and, whenever possible, a source reference.
Use of AI
We rely on AI tools for drafting support and layout. Before anything goes live, a human editor reviews it and compares it with the primary references cited above. Machine-generated text is never published on scientific topics without such editorial review.
