# About mypeptidesrx

> About mypeptidesrx — Reading Three Prescription-Era Peptides Skeptically — About mypeptidesrx: an editorial rule for reading three Research Peptide Fundamentals compounds — semaglutide, tirzepatide, and tesamorelin — with evidence strength reported honestly, including where it's thin.

**RESEARCH PEPTIDE FUNDAMENTALS / COLOPHON**

A skeptic's reading of three peptides that made it into prescription medicine — reporting where the evidence is strong, and saying plainly where it isn't.

## What this site does

mypeptidesrx exists to answer one question honestly for three specific compounds: semaglutide, tirzepatide, and tesamorelin all crossed the line from investigational peptide to FDA-approved prescription drug, so what did each one actually have to show to get there, and how much further does the evidence reach past that approval? The site organizes around that question, using tesamorelin as the anchor because it is the clearest example of an approval that is real but narrow: one indication, one studied population, decades of off-label use layered on top.

Each compound has its own page with a full research summary, a shared comparison page lines up all three directly, an FAQ answers the questions people bring most often, and a references page collects every citation used across the site, numbered and linked. Nothing here is sold, dosed, or prescribed. It is a literature summary, written to be read critically rather than taken as instruction.

## How the skepticism actually works

'Rigorous skeptic' is not a slogan on this site, it is an editorial rule. Three things follow from it in practice. First, a claim's strength is reported honestly: a finding from a single 17,604-person outcomes trial is treated differently from a finding pooled across nine meta-analyzed trials, and both are treated differently from a patient-forum anecdote, even when all three describe the same drug. Second, unresolved questions are named as unresolved rather than quietly resolved by omission — semaglutide's own safety review says its cancer signals cannot yet be confirmed or ruled out, and this site reports that exact ambiguity rather than rounding it to 'safe' or 'risky.' Third, community-reported and anecdotal material is always labeled as such and never presented as a clinical finding, and where no such material exists to summarize (tesamorelin), the site says so instead of inventing texture to fill the gap.

## What this site will not do

This site does not practice medicine, sell any compound, or recommend a dose, schedule, or route for any person; none of the content here should be read as a suggestion for individual use. It does not link to vendors, sourcing sites, or research-chemical suppliers, and it will not point a reader toward one if asked. It does not diagnose, and it does not substitute for a licensed clinician who can weigh an individual's health history against the published evidence.

What it does is keep the citation trail intact: every specific numeric claim on this site traces back to a numbered source on the [references page](/references), with a DOI or PubMed link where one exists. If a claim can't be traced that way, it shouldn't be on this site, and if you find one that isn't, the [contact page](/contact) is the place to flag it.

---

An independent research summary that reports evidence quality honestly, including where it's thin — not a clinic, not a pharmacy, not medical advice.