An Independent Digest, Organised by Origin

What this desk publishes

Primitive Peptides is an independent editorial digest of the published literature on four research compounds: NAD+, KPV, PT-141 (bremelanotide) and GHK-Cu. It is not a clinic, a pharmacy, a compounder, a telehealth service or a vendor. Nothing on it is for sale, no supply is arranged or referred, and no dose is recommended to any person for any purpose.

The organising principle is provenance. Each entry begins at the parent molecule — the hormone, the structural protein, the coenzyme — describes what that molecule does natively, and then marks the specific point at which the manufactured version stops resembling it. That framing was chosen because it is the point most often skipped. A product description that opens with the body already makes this has said something true and has answered none of the questions that determine what the product does.

How an entry is assembled

Every factual claim on this site is drawn from a signed, citation-audited research corpus, one per compound, assembled before any page was written. The reference list is fixed at composition time and numbered once; the writing stage selects from it and cannot add to it. That constraint is deliberate. It means a claim cannot be strengthened after the fact by attaching a citation that was found later to fit, and it means every number printed here was already in the audited record before there was a sentence to put it in.

Quantitative statements carry a bracketed reference number that resolves to the references page. Statements without a number are definitional, structural or regulatory context. Where the underlying corpus records a caution without a matching citation in this site's reference list, the caution is printed plainly and without a reference number rather than being attached to the nearest available source.

Community-reported material is segregated and labelled as anecdotal, not clinical evidence, wherever it appears, and no dose is ever attached to it. It is included because omitting it would misrepresent what is actually known about how these compounds are used, and it is fenced because it is not evidence.

The standard the masthead is held to

A site called Primitive Peptides has an obvious failure mode: implying that older, simpler or more natural means better or safer. The naturalistic fallacy is the specific error, and it is a live commercial force in this category rather than an abstract one.

The editorial position is fixed. Endogenous origin is a fact about a molecule's history and a legitimate reason to investigate it. It is not evidence of efficacy, not evidence of tolerability, and not a substitute for a trial. Where the literature shows a natural molecule performing well, this desk reports it; where it shows a natural molecule failing to translate, as the 2025 review of NAD+ precursor trials in ageing does ^[1], it reports that in the same voice and at the same length.

Evidence quality is described in the terms the study itself supports. Rodent colitis models are named as rodent colitis models. A rabbit corneal study is named as a rabbit corneal study ^[11]. A trial of a combination formulation is not reported as a trial of one of its ingredients ^[20]. Where no human data exists — as for KPV — that absence is stated as a finding rather than left as an omission.

What is not here

There is no protocol, no dosing table, no sourcing guidance, no vendor comparison, no reconstitution instruction and no purchase route, and none of these will be added. Requests for them are declined rather than routed elsewhere.

There is also no attempt to reach a verdict on whether a compound is worth using. That judgement depends on an individual clinical situation this desk knows nothing about, and it belongs to a qualified clinician with access to that situation. What is offered instead is the underlying record, arranged so that the distance between a marketing claim and the evidence behind it is visible at a glance.