About Us

BioRx is the source of truth for peptide science. One library, 196 compounds, 905 real citations, every claim graded against the study behind it. We built it because nobody else would: the space is full of marketing copy, forum folklore and confident claims with nothing underneath, and the people asking honest questions deserved better.

An industry authority, built in the open

Peptide research is one of the most active and most misrepresented areas in modern biochemistry. The gap between what a study actually showed and what the internet says it showed is often enormous. BioRx closes that gap. For each compound we set out what has actually been studied, in which species, at what stage, with what result, and we say plainly where the evidence runs out. We would rather publish "nobody knows yet" than fill a gap with something that sounds better.

That honesty is the whole brand. It is why clinicians, journalists and researchers use this library, and it is why we will never trade it away.

We work with researchers

BioRx is not written from press releases. Entries are built from the primary literature: the trials, the registries and the labels. We work with researchers, pharmacists and independent laboratories to review how we characterise studies, to challenge our evidence grades, and to keep every entry pointed at its sources. When someone shows us we have a study wrong, we change the entry and log the correction on the page.

Who this is for

• Curious readers who met a compound in a podcast or a headline and want to know what the science actually says.
• Clinicians and pharmacists who need a fast, sourced summary of a compound a patient has asked about.
• Researchers, students, journalists and fact-checkers who want an orientation before the primary literature, which every entry cites.

How we stay honest

• Everything is graded. Every compound carries an explicit evidence tier, from preclinical to high quality, and the grade is about how well it has been studied, not whether we like it.
• Everything is sourced. Claims trace to PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, the DOI or the regulator, and we send you there to check us.
• Information is labelled for what it is. Where we report what studies used or what the peptide community reports, we say exactly that. Nothing on this site is medical advice or a prescription, and a prescriber who knows your history is the right person for the actual decision. See the Medical Disclaimer.
• Coverage cannot be bought. No sponsorship, no affiliate links, no payment for placement or tone. Nobody can pay to be included, excluded, or graded kindly. Our full approach is in the Editorial Policy.
• We do not overstate. A cell-culture finding is not a benefit, an animal study is not a human result, and an early trial is not settled science.

How entries are made, reviewed and dated

Every entry follows the same path: a structured search of the primary sources; extraction of study design, species, sample size, endpoints and limitations; drafting against our four-tier evidence scale; and a review pass by a second person before publication. Every page carries a visible published date and a last-reviewed date, and material corrections are flagged on the page itself.

Talking to us

Corrections, evidence we have missed, and challenges to how we have characterised a study are all welcome, from readers and researchers alike. See Contact.