About Peptides101
Most of what is written about peptides is quoting something else. We read the primary documents and tell you what they say — including when the answer is that nobody knows.
peptides101.com carries no advertising, accepts no sponsorship, sells no products, and earns no commission on anything we write about.
Why this site exists
In April 2026, twelve peptides left FDA’s Category 2 list. A wave of coverage followed, with headlines like “14 Peptides Are About to Become Legal Again.”
That is backwards, and the document says so.
Those peptides left Category 2 because the people who nominated them withdrew the nominations. They did not move into Category 1. They are not on the 503A bulks list. They remain non-compoundable. Their legal status moved sideways, not toward legality — and FDA’s own safety language about them is still on the page.
Meanwhile, Category 2 does still contain peptide-adjacent substances — ibutamoren (MK-677) and kisspeptin-10 among them. So the popular summary is wrong in both directions at once: it announces freedom that did not arrive, and it misses the two things that actually are flagged.
None of this is hidden. It is in a PDF on fda.gov that anyone can download. The reason almost nobody quotes it is that fda.gov returns a 404 to ordinary automated fetchers, so the document does not appear in the tools most writers use. The corpus is quoting itself.
We open the documents. That is the whole product. Our editorial policy describes exactly how, so you can check our work.
What we do not do
We do not publish dosing. We do not sell anything, or take a commission when you buy something elsewhere, or accept sponsorship from anyone in this industry. We do not have a telehealth partner, an affiliate account, or a supplement line.
That is not modesty — it is the only arrangement under which the rest of this site can be honest. Most of what is true about most peptides is unflattering to the people selling them: no human data, a failed trial, an FDA recommendation against approval. A site paid by that industry cannot print that. We would rather be small and able to.
Who writes this
No clinician has reviewed this content yet.
We are saying so rather than implying otherwise. Pages on this site do not carry a “medically reviewed” line, and our structured data omits the review fields entirely, because no review has happened. When a named clinician is attached, their credentials, licence number and conflict-of-interest statement will be published here and linked from every page they review.
What we cannot tell you
Some of our records say Not yet verified. That means we have not finished checking that compound against primary sources, so we are not going to guess.
This is the field where every other site in this category quietly puts something plausible. A blank is honest. A guess is how you end up as one more page that other pages quote.
Contact
Found an error? Tell us. We would rather be corrected than be wrong quietly.