Editorial standards

Every page starts from primary sources: the peer-reviewed literature indexed in PubMed and Europe PMC, FDA records and documents, ClinicalTrials.gov registry entries, PubChem chemical records and the WADA Prohibited List. Claims are drafted only from fetched source text, each factual claim is tied to a specific citation in a machine-readable ledger published at /evidence.json, and automated checks verify at build time that every quoted passage appears in the archived source and that every citation URL resolves.

One rule is specific to this compound and governs everything here: every study is labelled with the molecule that was actually administered. TB-500 is a 7-amino-acid fragment of thymosin beta-4, and most of the human trial literature tested the full 43-amino-acid protein instead. We never let a full-protein result stand in for a fragment result, in either direction, and our study table carries a molecule column next to the species column so you can check us.

We are equally explicit about what our process is not: no physician or clinician has reviewed this content, and we do not display reviewer credentials we do not have. Content that names no reviewer has had none.

Claims about TB-500 may cite only: peer-reviewed journals indexed in PubMed or PMC, FDA sources (Drugs@FDA, openFDA, fda.gov documents and advisory committee materials), ClinicalTrials.gov records, PubChem, the WADA Prohibited List and national or international anti-doping and racing authorities. Peptide-vendor pages, supplement blogs, forums, certificates of analysis supplied by sellers, and press releases are banned as sources.

Where evidence does not exist, we say so explicitly rather than borrowing a nearby claim. Absence statements (no published human study of the fragment, no established dose, no human pharmacokinetics) are themselves cited to the regulator statement, registry search or review that documents the absence. Where we searched for something and could not verify it, we say that too rather than leaving the impression that we did not look: our page on the horse-racing record states plainly that we looked for individual racing-authority disciplinary rulings naming TB-500 and did not verify any against a primary regulator source.

Every page displays its published and last-updated dates. This reference is re-reviewed when any of the following happens: results post for NCT07487363 (the first registered human study of the fragment), FDA completes rulemaking on the July 2026 compounding proposal, WADA publishes a new Prohibited List (annually), results post for any thymosin beta-4 trial, or a new peer-reviewed human study of either molecule appears.

Independent of those triggers, the citation set is re-verified on a quarterly cycle and dead links are repaired or replaced. When a number on this site changes because the underlying record changed, the change is noted on the page rather than made silently.

If you find an error, use the contact link in the site footer. Corrections are assessed against primary sources, and substantive corrections are noted on the affected page with the date of the change. Disagreements between sources are surfaced in the text rather than silently resolved.

We are particularly interested in two kinds of correction: a published human study of the LKKTETQ fragment that we have missed, and any primary regulator document recording a racing or anti-doping action naming TB-500. Both would change what this site says, and we would rather be corrected than be comfortable.