How we work
Editorial standards
Most harm in this field comes from a single move: describing a mouse study in the language of a human result. Everything below exists to stop that move.
Three tiers, never merged
Every compound entry splits evidence into three labelled sections. They are rendered separately, in a fixed order, and we do not blend them into a single narrative even when that would read better.
Human data
Direct trial evidence in people. We state the population, because a result in post-surgical patients is not a result in healthy trained adults. Where a compound has no human trials, the section says so rather than quietly disappearing.
Preclinical data
Animal models and in-vitro work. Useful for mechanism, not for effect. A rat tendon is not a human tendon and we will not write as though it is.
Anecdotal discussion
Reported experience from forums, practitioners, and users. We include it because pretending it does not exist drives people to worse sources. We label it as what it is: not evidence of effect.
What each entry must carry
An entry does not publish without a mechanism section written in mechanism language, an explicit “where people overreach” section, a safety and regulatory context section, a “what this is not” section, a source count, and a dated editorial review. The review date is shown on the page. If it is old, you can see that it is old.
Sources
We link primary literature wherever a primary source exists, with a DOI when one is published. Reviews are labelled as reviews. We do not cite supplement-company blog posts, clinic marketing pages, or vendor product copy as evidence of anything.
Where the evidence base is thin, we say the evidence base is thin. A short entry with an honest source count is worth more than a long one padded with tangential citations.
Conflicts of interest
We sell nothing you ingest. No supplements, no prescriptions, no dosing protocols, no sourcing guidance, and no vendor referrals. We do not accept payment, product, or affiliate commission in exchange for coverage, and we take no sponsorship from supplement companies, clinics, or compounding pharmacies.
This is a business constraint, not a temporary posture. The moment we earn money from a compound being used, our evidence tiering stops being trustworthy, including to us.
Corrections
If something here is wrong, we want to know, and we would rather hear it bluntly. Email contact@aeternusperformance.com with the page and what is inaccurate. Substantive corrections are made to the entry and the review date is updated so the change is visible rather than silent.
What this is not
None of this makes us your clinician. Our standards govern how carefully we describe research, not whether any of it applies to you. That question belongs with a qualified professional who knows your history. See the medical disclaimer.
Evidence has tiers. Pretending otherwise is how people get hurt.