How we work.

This page is the durable account of how we work. If you spot a discrepancy between what an article does and what this page claims we do, that’s a real bug — email us at hello@anthivera.com and we’ll fix it.

The editorial firewall

The non-negotiable. Anthivera compares and informs. It does not diagnose, prescribe, or recommend treatment for any specific condition. Provider reviews state observable facts (credentials, pharmacy sourcing, pricing, states served). They do not say “this provider is right for your situation.”

Commercial relationships never change editorial ratings. Sponsored placements are labeled; the rating underneath them is unchanged by the sponsorship. See our affiliate disclosure for the full money-and-content boundary.

The calibrated evidence ladder

Every claim about a peptide’s effects is labeled against a five-step evidence ladder. This is the vocabulary we use across every article, every peptide page, and every internal review:

1. Preclinical — animal models, in vitro, mechanistic data only. No human studies.
2. Limited clinical — small open-label trials, case reports, or pilot data in humans (typically fewer than ~50 subjects).
3. Multiple human studies — multiple cohort or observational studies, meta-analyses, or phase 1/2 RCTs.
4. Phase 3 — completed phase 3 randomized controlled trial(s); not yet FDA-approved.
5. FDA-approved — the FDA has reviewed and approved the substance for the specific indication being discussed.

A peptide’s position on this ladder appears on every peptide entry under “Where the evidence sits.” If the article body says “limited clinical” that phrase means a specific thing — not editorial hedging.

How we source

The weekly research-feed agent scans PubMed, FDA filings, NEJM, JAMA, and Endpoints for cite-worthy work on women’s peptide therapy. Each candidate passes through an editorial- quality review before it reaches a digest. The peptide pages’ “Recent research” sections pull directly from those digests — every paper shown is a real cite-worthy entry, not a generic reference.

Articles cite primary sources where they exist. Where the evidence base is thin we say so plainly — “preliminary,” “animal data,” “not yet proven” — instead of softening the picture.

Regulatory accuracy

We use specific dates and specific categories. The 2026 regulatory cascade looks like this in our copy:

• Late 2023: FDA placed 19 peptides on Category 2 (do-not-compound list).
• April 23, 2026: Approximately 12 peptides were removed from Category 2.
• July 23–24, 2026: Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee (PCAC) review scheduled.
• CJC-1295 specifically remains restricted — classified as a developmental drug with adverse nonclinical findings.

Removal from Category 2 is not the same as Category 1, and Category 1 is not FDA approval. We say this in the disclaimer, on the affected peptide pages, and in any article touching the regulatory question — never sloppily.

How we evaluate providers

Provider reviews are scored against six observable criteria, all surfaced on each provider’s page:

1. Credentials — board certifications, medical group, women’s health specialization.
2. Pharmacy sourcing — PCAB / FDA-registered, 503A or 503B, certificates of analysis. The single most important trust signal.
3. Peptides offered — what’s in the catalog and which categories it leans toward.
4. Pricing transparency — consult fee, monthly range, follow-up fee, and whether prices appear before signup.
5. States served — where the provider can legally prescribe via telehealth.
6. Monitoring practices — baseline labs, follow-up cadence, continuity of care.

A 4.6/5 means the provider scored well across those six. It doesn’t mean the provider is the right fit for your medical situation — that’s a conversation for a licensed clinician.

Review cadence + medical review

Every peptide entry is re-verified at least quarterly, and within fourteen days of any FDA, PCAC, or state-board action affecting the regulatory status of a covered peptide. Substantive changes — new evidence, dosing updates, regulatory movement — refresh the entry’s updated date and the regulatory-status line at the top of the page.

A medical reviewer is a licensed clinician (MD, DO, NP, PA, PharmD) who signs off on the clinical and regulatory claims of a piece before publication or update. Reviewers do not provide medical advice — they verify that the article accurately reflects the evidence and the current regulatory record. Anthivera is in the process of bringing reviewers onto the masthead; until each entry has a named clinician, it surfaces a Pending medical reviewindicator instead of hiding the absence. We’d rather be visibly mid-build than quietly under-credentialed.

Conflicts of interest

Anthivera earns money from affiliate links and may, in the future, earn from sponsored placements. Both are disclosed on every page that contains them, near the link, in plain language. The full disclosure lives on the affiliate disclosure page.

No editorial decision — which providers we cover, how we rate them, which peptides we write about — is contingent on a commercial relationship. If a sponsored provider scores poorly on our criteria, they score poorly. The label changes; the rating does not.

Corrections

Substantive corrections (a wrong fact, a wrong regulatory status, a misattributed source) are made promptly and the article’s updated date is bumped. We log the change in the article itself when the correction materially affects what a reader would do.

Spot something wrong? Email hello@anthivera.com and we’ll respond.

Who writes this

Every published article carries an author byline. See the editors and contributors for the people behind the publication.