ION BLUE · Publisher Disclosure
About this encyclopedia
Who publishes this, and the standard we hold it to. We’re a skincare company writing about ingredients we sell — so we built this to be checkable, not promotional.
The Standard
Four commitments
01
Every claim is tied to a cited study
Each statement traces to a real, published source with a PMID or DOI. References that can’t be verified against the literature are removed, not paraphrased.
02
Manufacturer-funded research is labeled as such
When a study’s authors, funders, or affiliations have a commercial tie to the ingredient, we say so in the entry — so you can weigh the source, not just the result.
03
We say so when evidence is weak — including for what we sell
Where controlled human evidence is thin or absent, the entry states it plainly. We hold ingredients we sell to the same honest grading as everything else.
04
Educational, not medical advice
This is a research summary for general understanding. It is not medically reviewed, not a recommendation, and not a substitute for a licensed healthcare provider.
The Conflict of Interest
We sell some of these. Here’s why you can trust us anyway.
This encyclopedia is published by ION BLUE, a skincare company. We sell products containing some of the peptides documented here — which is exactly why we hold this resource to a stricter standard than our own marketing: every claim is tied to a real, cited study, manufacturer-funded research is labeled as such, and where evidence is weak or absent we say so plainly, including for ingredients we sell. Educational only; not medically reviewed. Nothing here is medical advice.
“Where evidence is weak or absent we say so plainly — including for ingredients we sell.”
Rigor in Numbers
The standard, counted
20
Peptides documented
across 6 categories
42
Citations — every one a verifiable PMID/DOI
38 unique sources
19
Conflicts of interest disclosed
across 14 of 20 entries
20/20
Entries state where evidence is weak or absent
no entry overstates its evidence
Figures reflect the 20 currently published entries and are derived from the cited source data, not rounded or estimated.
Editorial Method
How we verify
A short, honest account of what we actually do — not an aspiration.
Citations are checked against the source
Every reference’s PMID is verified against NCBI PubMed before it’s used. Sources that don’t resolve, or don’t say what a draft claimed, are removed.
Conflicts of interest are flagged
Manufacturer, funder, and developer ties on a cited study are recorded on the entry — including well-known ones (e.g. RegeneRx/Goldstein on TB-500, the CJC-1295 developer on its key paper).
Blend studies are distinguished from isolated-peptide studies
When a result comes from a multi-ingredient formula or a delivery device, we state that the effect cannot be attributed to the single peptide alone.
Research-summary framing, not efficacy claims
We write “studies indicate” and “research associates,” with the evidence level attached. We do not assert that a peptide treats, reduces, or boosts anything.
“We don’t know” is stated plainly
Where controlled human evidence is absent, the entry says so — for research chemicals and for cosmetic ingredients we sell alike.
Found something that looks wrong, unsourced, or overstated — even on an ingredient we sell? That’s the point of holding it to this standard. Tell us and we’ll correct it.