Editorial standards
MOTS-c marketing routinely presents mouse experiments, genetic-association studies and an analog's trial as evidence that injecting MOTS-c works in people. Our standards below are how we keep those four things apart.
Our review process
Every claim on this site is written against a claims ledger: a structured file pairing each statement with a verbatim extract from a primary source fetched on a stated date. Pages are generated from that ledger, so a claim without a resolving source cannot ship. Each study row carries three mandatory labels: the species, the molecule actually studied (administered MOTS-c, the K14Q variant, endogenous MOTS-c measured, a MOTS-c genotype, or the CB4211 analog), and an evidence grade. A grade that misstates its source's study type is treated as our most serious defect class, more serious than a typo or a broken link.
Sourcing rules
We cite PubMed and PubMed Central, Europe PMC, FDA (openFDA, fda.gov, advisory committee briefing documents), NIH (PubChem), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Anti-Doping Agency only. No peptide vendors, no clinic pages, no press releases, no forum dosing lore. Where the truthful statement is an absence (no approved product, no human dosing study, no pharmacokinetic data), we cite the regulatory evaluation or database query that establishes the absence and we say absence, not a nearby positive. On the July 2026 advisory committee we publish FDA's own proposal and stop there: FDA has not posted a vote record, and we do not source vote claims to trade press.
Update policy
The reference list carries its verification date and the pack that generates this site is re-verified when the evidence changes. Two items are on a standing watch: the Phase 2a MOTS-c trial NCT07505745, which is recruiting with no results, and FDA's pending 503A rulemaking. When either moves, the affected pages are rewritten rather than patched, and the change is dated on the page.
Corrections and feedback
If any statement here misquotes a source, cites a study that does not support it, or grades evidence above its station, email corrections@ this domain with the page URL and the claim id shown beside the statement. Verified errors are corrected on the page with a dated note. A reader-caught grading error is handled exactly as an internally caught one: as the most serious defect class we have.