This site is published by Proof Line Peptides, a Canadian seller of research compounds. We have a commercial interest in you reading these pages and in you buying from the catalogue. That is the first thing worth knowing, and it is the reason every scientific statement here links the source it came from.
Who writes it
The guides, glossary, FAQ and product science sections are written in-house for Proof Line Peptides. Drafting is AI-assisted: text is generated, then reviewed against the cited sources for scope and accuracy before it is published. We do not claim that a qualified medical or scientific professional has reviewed this content, and you will not find a “medically reviewed” badge, an invented reviewer name, or a fabricated credential anywhere on this site. If we ever add professional review, we will say who did it.
How we distinguish source types
Not all sources answer the same kind of question, so we label which kind we are relying on.
| Peer-reviewed research | Published papers, cited with author, year and a DOI or PubMed link. A finding is reported with the system it came from — cells, an animal model, or a defined human population. |
|---|---|
| Official product labelling | Prescribing information for authorized medicines. It describes that manufacturer's product and, where the label is American, it is not evidence of Canadian authorization. We say which jurisdiction it is. |
| Regulator publications | Health Canada databases and safety advisories, cited by date. We report what the regulator states and do not extend it to conclusions about our own catalogue. |
| Technical supplier guidance | Manufacturer and pharmacopeial documents about methods such as HPLC purity or storage handling. These explain what a measurement means. They are never evidence about a specific vial, including ours. |
| Public discussion | Forum and social threads are used only to learn which questions people are asking. They are not cited as evidence for any factual or scientific claim, and we do not treat them as representative. |
Compound science is not product quality
This distinction runs through every page. Published research describes a molecule as studied, prepared and characterised by those researchers under their conditions. It is not evidence about the identity, purity, peptide content, sterility or handling of anything in our catalogue. Where a compound has been studied, we say what was studied. Where documentation for a product is unknown to us, we write that it is unknown rather than filling the gap.
What we do not publish
- No dosing, reconstitution, preparation or administration instructions, and no medical advice.
- No numerical purity, potency, sterility, endotoxin or batch-test figures for our own products.
- No claim that lot-specific laboratory reports are available for catalogue items.
- No customer reviews, testimonials, ratings or endorsements that we did not receive.
- No claim of Health Canada assessment, authorization or compliance for our catalogue.
- No blend component ratios, sequences or molecular identities that we cannot document.
- No invented statistics about traffic, rankings, search volume or independent testing.
Dates and revisions
Publication dates are the date the page was first published. Where a page is revised, the date changes only for a substantive change — a corrected fact, a new source, a restructured argument. Fixing a typo or adjusting layout does not earn a new date, because a date that moves for cosmetic reasons tells you nothing. Our research and content notes in the repository record what changed and when.
Corrections
If a statement here misrepresents a source, we would rather correct it than defend it. Corrections are made in place, with the date updated when the substance changes. Where an earlier version overstated a finding's scope, the corrected page states the narrower scope explicitly rather than quietly softening the wording.
Research use
Everything in the catalogue is presented for laboratory research use only and not for human consumption. A research-use statement is a statement of intended use. It is not a regulatory authorization, not a safety assessment, and — as Health Canada has stated — not an exemption from Canadian requirements.
Where to go next
The learning hub arranges every guide into four reading paths, the glossary defines the terms, and the journal is the full searchable library with sources listed on every article.