lifescore Edge seven-peptide claim-transfer audit

A claim-level comparison of 7 peptides against one bounded question: which of the claims sold for them were actually tested in people? Each substance is coded against four transfer gates — identity, administration, outcome and replication — so a reader can recompute the finding rather than accept it. 4 of the 7 have a located administered-human record, 2 have none, and 1 has a registered trial with no posted results. None of the 7 clears all four gates: replication is 7 of 7 stop. Selection. The set is exactly the seven peptide pairs — each a free base and its acetate — reviewed at the FDA Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee meeting of 23-24 July 2026. It was not assembled by us. The set is not presented as the seven most popular peptides. Selection followed the FDA agenda; no popularity, market or evidence-strength criterion of ours entered it. The meeting record and the seven dated briefing packages are the primary sources; the full rules are in PROTOCOL.md inside this package. Transfer gates identity — Is the substance in the human record the one the public claim is sold under - same molecule, same form, same finished preparation? partial = The substance is involved, but its form, preparation or finished product differs from the marketed article or was never verified. stop = The human record belongs to a different molecule. administration — Was the substance given to a person and the result observed? pass = Administered to people and observed. stop = No administered-human record was located. pending = A registered trial is administering it, with no results posted at the review date. This records publication status only; it implies nothing about what the results will show. outcome — Was the result the claim promises actually measured, in people the claim addresses? partial = The claimed result was measured, but the measurement does not carry it: uncontrolled, very small, or not converging across reports. stop = The claimed result was not measured. Either nothing was administered, or what was measured is a mechanism or biomarker standing in for the claim rather than the claim itself. pending = The study that would measure it has not reported. This records publication status only. replication — Has the exact claim been repeated by a team capable of failing it, outside the originating research network? stop = No independent repeat of the claim was located. Only verdicts the seven rows actually use are defined. On the outcome gate the line runs between the claimed result and a surrogate for it: a mechanism or biomarker signal is not the outcome, however suggestive. That is why Semax and Epitalon are stop although both were given to people. Boundary. Editorial evidence synthesis. Not medical advice, not treatment guidance, not a molecule score, and not proof that an untested claim is false. What this comparison cannot show. A stop means the available record cannot carry the written broad claim. It does not prove that the molecule cannot have an effect. The seven-row comparison is not a claim-complete extraction for the six non-BPC-157 substances; their complete detail stays in the individual evidence cards. Registry entries describe sponsor-reported plans and status, not efficacy or safety results. Human cells, cadaver tissue and endogenous peptide measurements are human biology, not administered-human treatment evidence. Authorship or citation concentration neither validates nor invalidates a result; it identifies the need for independent replication. FDA briefing packages are regulator evidence reviews for a compounding question. They are not exhaustive global systematic reviews, and the committee votes are not drug approvals. Independence of the auditor. A set that codes other people's evidence has to declare its own position. Edge does not currently carry advertising, sponsorships, affiliate links or paid placements. The people and organizations covered do not approve articles before publication. None of the audited parties commissioned, funded, reviewed or saw this audit before publication. lifescore sells no peptide, compounded or approved, and holds no position on any of the seven substances. Limits of that declaration. This audit was not externally peer reviewed. The auditor is the publication itself; there is no institutional affiliation and no third-party editorial board. Authorship is organizational rather than individual, so the coding cannot be attributed to a named expert with a public track record. Independence from a commercial interest is not a claim of expertise, and it does not make a coding decision correct. Licence scope. The transfer-gate scheme, the coding decisions, the claim-record extraction and the original summary text written by lifescore Edge. It does not cover the FDA briefing packages and the cited publications, which are referenced rather than reproduced; and the underlying facts, which are not subject to copyright. Published by lifescore Edge. The article this dataset belongs to: https://lifesco.re/edge/which-peptide-claims-have-actually-been-tested-in-people/. Editorial standards, source hierarchy and the correction route: https://lifesco.re/edge/methodology/.