19
Cosmetic RCTs analysed
One read every two weeks. The real RCT data — cosmetics, GLP-1, oncology — separated from the marketing. Sourced numbers, sharp verdicts, zero hype.
↓ Every figure on this page links to its primary publication (NEJM, Lilly, meta-analyses).
Each issue takes one subject, reads the studies nobody reads, and tells you what holds up — and what's just a marketing claim.
Verdict from a 2026 meta-analysis (19 RCTs, 1,341 participants):
The claim marketing pushes hardest — elasticity — is the least supported by the pooled data. Oral formulations consistently beat creams.
Head-to-head (SURMOUNT-5, 751 patients, 72 wks): tirzepatide −20.2% vs semaglutide −13.7% (p<0.001). Comparable adverse-event profile between the two.
The web is saturated with peptides sold as miracles by influencers. We take the opposite path — and we own it:
You want to understand the real biology behind peptides, without needless jargon or overselling.
You advise clients or patients and need solid, sourced, up-to-date data.
You're tired of molecular marketing and want to know what actually holds up.
Join the readers who want peptide science, not storytelling.
Disclaimer: this content is for scientific information only and does not constitute medical advice. GLP-1 figures (SURMOUNT-5, SURMOUNT-1, STEP-1, TRIUMPH-1) are verified against their primary publications. Cosmetic data refers to a meta-analysis published in Frontiers in Medicine (17 March 2026). Consult a healthcare professional before any therapeutic decision. Peptides not approved by health authorities should not be used outside medical supervision.