Notes
Working notes on the record itself — where numbers came from, where they stop holding up, and what the literature does not cover. Every claim is sourced or marked as unsourced.
Checking Whether a Paper Has Been Retracted
Three of the four flagged HGF/Met papers from the laboratory behind dihexa were retracted in April 2025; the fourth, the paper that introduced dihexa itself, still carries a 2021 expression of concern. Re-checking exposed where retraction status is recorded, where it is typed wrongly, and where it is absent.
What a PMID Establishes, and What It Does Not
A PMID certifies that a record exists and that the number will never be reused. It certifies nothing about whether the paper contains the claim attached to it, and the two syntheses that measured that correspondence disagree: 25.4 per cent of references on one denominator, 14.5 per cent of quotations on the other.
Species, Route and Sample Size: Why Every Figure Carries Them
A dose of 50 mg/kg given to a mouse by intraperitoneal injection and the same figure applied to a person describe different exposures, and neither carries much without the group size it was measured in. Set out here is the published basis for the three fields on every row of this record, and where it runs out.
Lyophilised Describes a Process, Not a Molecule
A claim circulates that tirzepatide is a lyophilised powder. Every approved presentation is a ready-to-use sterile solution. This note records what the checking returned, what freeze-drying is as a unit operation, and why physical form belongs to a product. No origin was found; the claim stays marked untraceable.
Isoelectric Point and Peptide Solubility: A Correction
A widely repeated account attributes tesamorelin gelling to an isoelectric point near neutral pH. Recomputed from the verified sequence, the value lands between 10.40 and 11.43, depending on the pK set and on whether the termini are treated as blocked; the gelling mechanisms on record were measured on other peptides.
When a Claim Traces to Nothing
A number appears on a product page with no source, picks up a citation that does not support it, and comes back as consensus. What the research on citation cascades and repetition has reported, where that research disagrees with itself, and why this site publishes the claims it cannot trace.