About This Investigation
A citation-anchored inquiry into four unrelated peptides marketed under one shared label — CJC-1295, GHK-Cu, semaglutide, tesamorelin. Nothing sold, no one treated, no advice given.
What this investigation asks
Peptide Scienes is an investigation into four peptides — CJC-1295, GHK-Cu, semaglutide, and tesamorelin — picked precisely because they get lumped under one loose umbrella term, "research peptides," while belonging to at least three unrelated pharmacological families. The question driving the whole thing is a reporter's, not a marketer's: what does the actual published evidence say about each of these compounds, and how confidently does it say it?
The answer, it turns out, swings wildly from one compound to the next. GHK-Cu opens the investigation because it shows the gap most starkly — deep cell-biology and gene-expression evidence beside a comparatively thin human-trial record outside topical skincare. Semaglutide sits at the far end, with a clinical-trial program running to tens of thousands of participants. CJC-1295 and tesamorelin share a receptor and a hormone family yet met opposite regulatory fates — one a discontinued research chemical, the other an FDA-approved drug for a single condition. Laying all four side by side, on the comparison page, is the quickest way to see how unevenly "evidence" can be spread across compounds that share nothing but a marketing category.
How the reporting works
Three practices govern the investigation. First, every research claim is traced back to a specific citation — peer-reviewed journal articles, clinical-trial publications, regulatory monographs, and reviews, collected with DOIs and PubMed links on the references page. Second, findings are reported at the strength they actually carry: a Phase 2 finding is called Phase 2, a rodent or cell-culture result is named as such, and an FDA-reviewed trial in one narrow patient population is never stretched past that population. Where a compound has a documented gap — no long-term safety trial, no head-to-head comparison, no data outside one indication — the page says so outright rather than papering over the silence with confidence the evidence can't support.
Third, the four pages are cross-linked on purpose, because the same underlying questions keep coming back: what receptor or pathway is actually engaged, how deep the human evidence runs, and what happens once a compound leaves the lab for community use. One shared references list gathers every source cited across all four pages, so no citation shows up twice wearing two different descriptions.
Where the inquiry stops
An investigation reports; it does not run a pharmacy, a clinic, a telehealth service, or a storefront of any kind. Peptide Scienes sells, sources, and brokers nothing — not CJC-1295, GHK-Cu, semaglutide, tesamorelin, nor anything else — and holds no referral or affiliate tie to any supplier or pharmaceutical company. It diagnoses nobody, prescribes nothing, and puts no dose, schedule, or route forward for any person.
Semaglutide and tesamorelin are prescription medicines, reachable only through licensed providers. CJC-1295 and GHK-Cu have no FDA-approved drug products; a compounded GHK-Cu injectable needs a clinician's prescription and has no FDA approval. Anyone after clinical guidance should consult a licensed healthcare provider in their own jurisdiction. Notes — citation corrections, newly published studies, out-of-date regulatory information — are welcome by way of the contact page; the investigation can't answer requests for medical advice.