Who writes
The content is produced by the Bionic Editorial Team, a collective byline. We do not use invented individual authors or profiles with credentials we cannot document. If a person's name appears in an article, it is a real person with a verifiable professional license, and their role is stated explicitly.
We prefer an honest collective byline to a decorative individual one. In health content, claiming credentials that aren't real is one of the practices search engines penalize most harshly, and rightly so.
Scientific review
Articles on sensitive topics are meant to carry review by a licensed health professional. Today that field is empty. There is no designated reviewer yet, and we would rather say so than pretend there is.
When there is one, their name, credential, and license number will appear on the reviewed articles, and their role will be a narrow one: verifying the scientific accuracy of educational content. It is not a therapeutic endorsement or a clinical recommendation.
Source hierarchy
Not all sources are worth the same, and the text has to reflect that difference in the same paragraph where the figure appears, not in a footnote.
| Level | Type of source | How we say it in the text |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Published, peer-reviewed randomized clinical trial | We cite the trial, the population, the number of participants, the dose, and the week |
| 2 | Preliminary result announced by the sponsor, not yet published | We state expressly that it is topline and has not been peer reviewed |
| 3 | Observational study or case series | We point out that it cannot establish causation |
| 4 | Preclinical research: animal or in vitro | We say the finding is in an animal model or in the lab, and that it does not translate directly |
| 5 | Forum consensus, anecdotal experience | Not used to back any claim |
Rules we don't negotiate
- No figure without a source. If we can't find the study behind a number, we describe the finding qualitatively and say so.
- No invented references. We do not fabricate DOIs, authors, or study titles. Every reference links to the primary source.
- No promised outcomes. We don't write about what is going to happen to the reader. We describe what was measured, in whom, and under what conditions.
- Weak evidence is flagged where the data is, not in a closing disclaimer.
- Every article has a section on what the evidence does not settle. It is mandatory, not decorative.
- Zero therapeutic claims. No compound described on this site is approved to treat, prevent, or cure anything.
What we don't publish
We do not publish personal testimonials, before-and-after photographs, human dosing protocols presented as a recommendation, "which one is better" comparisons, or content suggesting that a research compound is a substitute for an approved treatment.
Dates and updates
Every article states its last review date. We review content when relevant new evidence appears, when a compound's regulatory status changes, or when we spot an error. Articles about compounds with an active clinical program are reviewed more often because their data moves.
Corrections policy
If we find a factual error, we correct it and update the review date. If the error changes an article's conclusion, we say so visibly inside the text itself rather than quietly swapping it out.
If you spot an error, write to us at info@bionicpharmalabs.com with the reference that backs it up. Sourced corrections always get attention.
Conflict of interest
This is worth stating plainly: Bionic Pharma sells research compounds, and this blog sits on its domain. That is a structural conflict of interest that no disclaimer removes.
What we do to contain it: articles link to no more than two product pages, include no prices or promotions, and each one must contain at least one section that takes the shine off its own subject. A reader may decide that isn't enough; that is a reasonable judgment, and we would rather they reach it with the information in front of them.
This site publishes educational content about compounds for research use only. It is not medical advice, it does not describe treatments, and it is not a substitute for consulting a health care professional.