# An Independent Research Digest

> About — British Colombia Peptides — British Colombia Peptides is an independent research digest covering five research peptides. Not a clinic, not a vendor, not a prescription.

**ABOUT**

We read the published literature and report what it says. We sell nothing and prescribe nothing.

## What this site is

British Colombia Peptides collects and summarizes the published research on five compounds — BPC-157, semaglutide, ipamorelin, NAD+ and GHK-Cu — that regularly come up together under the label "research peptides," even though, as our [comparison page](/compare) lays out, they differ enormously in regulatory status and how much human evidence actually backs them. Our job is narrow: read the primary literature and the review articles, and report what each study actually found, in plain language, with a citation attached to every specific claim.

We are not a clinic. We do not sell peptides, supplements, or access to a prescriber. We do not recommend a dose for any individual, and where we mention a dose, it is always the dose used in a specific cited study — never a suggestion for a reader. Where community members report an effect that has not been tested in a controlled trial, we label it *anecdotal, not clinical evidence* and keep it clearly separate from what the published science supports.

## How to read this site

Each compound page follows the same shape: a plain-English summary up top, then what the compound is, how it is thought to work, what the strongest published studies actually found, and finally what people report experiencing alongside the documented safety cautions. Every numbered citation — [1], [2], and so on — links to a full reference on the [references page](/references), which lists the journal, authors, year and a direct link or DOI wherever one exists.

The Canadian frame adds one discipline: an FDA status is not rewritten as a Health Canada status. The supplied corpus documents the US position more fully. Canadian approval, access or compounding claims are omitted unless this source set supports them. Evidence travels. Jurisdiction does not.

## Editorial standards

The desk does not fabricate citations, studies or numbers. Every quantitative claim — a percentage, a trial size, a half-life — traces to a specific numbered source. Drug names are used for identification, never endorsement. No human dosing recommendation appears. Thin evidence is labeled as thin. Gaps are not filled with confidence the literature does not support. Inaccurate or stale material can be reported through the [contact page](/contact).

## What the desk does not resolve

This digest does not decide whether a compound belongs in an individual's care. It does not assess a product, supplier, prescription, laboratory protocol or personal risk profile. It does not convert a study dose into an instruction. It does not treat online frequency labels as incidence rates.

The desk also does not fill Canadian regulatory gaps by analogy. The source set carries detailed compound findings and mostly US compliance notes. Where a current Health Canada source would be required, the site marks the jurisdictional boundary and stops. That restraint is part of the editorial method. It is more useful than a confident guess.

The durable output is simpler: a readable map of mechanisms, study designs, measured findings, cautions and unresolved questions. It can support informed reading. It cannot replace clinical judgment or a regulator's current record.

---

A literature desk on five research peptides, read against the Canadian regulatory backdrop — not a clinic, not a vendor, not a prescription.