Standards
How we work.
Compound Codex exists to do one thing well: report what the research actually shows about peptides and the compounds people stack with them. Here's what that means in practice.
We don't sell the compounds we cover, take affiliate money from anyone who does, or run buy-CTAs on profiles. The evidence grade is the whole product. Donations through /support are optional and don't influence anything we publish.
Every compound on the site gets a single number on the Codex Scale, 1–10 — from 10 (Established) down to 1 (Unsupported). The grade reflects the strength of the human evidence, not popularity or vendor enthusiasm. The full rubric is on the methodology page.
Claims tie back to primary sources — trials, FDA and regulatory records, anti-doping listings, the relevant peer-reviewed literature. We flag when most of a compound's research traces back to a single lab or industry sponsor.
We cover what a compound is and what the evidence shows — never how much to take, how to cycle, or what to stack. Dosing is a question for a clinician familiar with your protocol, not a website.
Spot an error? Tell us, with a source, and we'll correct it and note the change in the changelog. Corrections are the point — not an embarrassment.
No sponsor or advertiser decides a grade. No vendor pays for placement. No affiliate links on profiles. The call on every compound is ours and the reader's alone — and we re-grade as new evidence lands.
Educational content only — nothing here is medical advice. Questions or corrections: see the forum.