Mirror of the Market · Fair Comment · Public Interest · Not Medical Advice · Appeals Process
Peptide Assessment Audit · 20 US Providers
The Peptide Assessment
Hall of Shame
We audited every peptide questionnaire we could find across the United States. Most aren't assessments at all — they're lead generation forms wearing a lab coat.
Scoring Methodology
Each provider was evaluated on 6 clinical criteria that any responsible peptide assessment should include. A score of 1 represents a perfect assessment; 100 represents the worst possible outcome — no assessment at all, or a lead generation form with zero clinical value. The criteria are weighted by clinical importance:
Does the tool ask about conditions that would make peptide use dangerous?
Does it collect relevant health background before recommending?
Does it generate individualized recommendations based on answers?
Are recommendations backed by peer-reviewed research?
Does it understand what the user is trying to achieve?
Does it include appropriate medical disclaimers?
For Comparison: The Peptide Clarity Index™
Our assessment scores 5/100 — meeting all 6 clinical criteria with 7 scoring axes and 16 personalized archetypes.
The Rankings
Take an Assessment That Actually Works
10 questions. 7 clinical axes. 16 personalized archetypes. Contraindication screening. Evidence citations. No lead generation tricks.
For Manufacturers & Suppliers
Join Our Vetted Supply Network
We are onboarding 400+ naturopathic clinics and selectively expanding our approved vendor base. If your manufacturing meets our transparency and quality standards, we want to hear from you.
Become a Supply PartnerThis site is where you read and learn. Business engagement — supplier applications, buyer onboarding, CoA verification, and distribution partnerships — happens at ramprate.com/biochain.
Methodology Note: This audit was conducted in February 2026 by visiting each provider's website and evaluating their publicly available peptide assessment or questionnaire tools. Scores reflect the quality of the consumer-facing assessment tool only — not the quality of clinical care provided. Providers without a public assessment tool received the maximum weakness score (100). This page is for educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Rankings may change as providers update their tools.