How Ercle Rates Peptide Evidence: Our Methodology

We use a four-tier evidence rating system. Here's exactly what each rating means, what disqualifies compounds from higher ratings, and why we rate the way we do.

Why Evidence Ratings Matter

The peptide space is saturated with marketing that misrepresents evidence quality. Compounds with a single rodent study are sold with the same confidence as FDA-approved drugs with Phase III RCT data. This conflation is dangerous.

Ercle’s evidence ratings exist to give practitioners and patients a fast, honest signal about the actual evidence quality — not the marketing narrative.

Our Four-Tier System

Strong Evidence

Criteria: Multiple Phase III RCTs with peer-reviewed results; consistent effects across independent research groups; FDA approval or equivalent national regulatory approval

Examples: Semaglutide (STEP trial program), Thymosin Alpha-1 (approved in 35 countries), Tirzepatide (SURMOUNT/SURPASS programs), PT-141/Bremelanotide (RECONNECT program)

Moderate Evidence

Criteria: Phase II RCTs or multiple Phase I/II human studies with consistent results; strong mechanistic data supported by human pharmacokinetic studies; independent replication from at least two research groups

Examples: BPC-157 (strong animal evidence + Phase II IBD work), GHK-Cu (multiple peer-reviewed topical RCTs), Semax (Russian RCTs with independent publication), SS-31 (Phase II EMPOWER-HF)

Preliminary Evidence

Criteria: Animal models with consistent results; limited human data (case series, single studies); mechanistically plausible but not yet confirmed in adequate human trials; single-source research (e.g., only one research group)

Examples: Epithalon (single Russian research group), MOTS-c (animal models only), Dihexa (animal models; human data absent), most Russian bioregulator peptides

Insufficient Evidence

Criteria: Single animal study or in vitro only; no human data; contradictory findings across studies; theoretical mechanism without experimental validation

Examples: P21 (single rodent study), most newly synthesized compounds without adequate preclinical characterization

What We Don’t Rate On

We do NOT adjust evidence ratings for:

Anecdotal reports or community testimonials
Vendor claims or manufacturer studies without peer review
Biological plausibility alone (mechanistically interesting ≠ evidence-based)
Popularity in performance enhancement communities

Update Frequency

Evidence ratings are reviewed annually at minimum. When significant new studies publish, we update on a rolling basis. The “Last Reviewed” date on each entry reflects when we last assessed the evidence.

Our Conflicts Policy

Ercle accepts no compensation from peptide vendors or compounding pharmacies for any content. Our advertising policy (see Advertise page) explicitly prohibits editorial influence. Evidence ratings are independent of commercial relationships.