What the Database Contains
The community-logs database aggregates self-reported protocol logs submitted by researchers over the past three years. As of this writing, the database contains approximately 3,200 individual protocol entries spanning 47 distinct compounds. Submissions arrive through the editorial inbox, are screened for completeness and plausibility, and are added with personally identifying information removed. The data is not anonymous in the rigorous statistical sense — individual submitters often have a recognizable writing style and a consistent set of self-reported demographics — but it is de-identified to the extent that no submitter is publicly named.
The submissions vary substantially in quality. The strongest entries include baseline measurements, objective outcome data (laboratory values, performance metrics, photographs of vials and shipping packaging), and follow-up reports weeks or months after protocol completion. The weakest are single-sentence "I tried X, felt great" submissions that contribute little beyond a vote on a popularity metric. The database surface to readers reflects this quality variation: high-quality entries are featured prominently; thin entries are aggregated into category counts without individual display.
What the Data Suggests, and What It Doesn't
Several patterns recur across compounds in the aggregate. Self-reported outcomes skew positive across nearly every compound at rates that exceed plausible underlying effect magnitudes — which is to say, the data is heavily affected by reporting bias. People who experience a clear effect post about it; people who experience nothing rarely do. Effect magnitude tends to be larger in the first protocol with a compound than in repeat protocols, consistent with both pharmacological tolerance and decay of novelty-driven placebo. Subjective outcomes (energy, mood, recovery sensation) show larger reported effects than objective outcomes (bodyweight, lab values, performance metrics), consistent with substantial placebo contribution to the subjective signal. Adverse-event reports cluster around protocol changes (new compound, dose increase, schedule change) and resolve with stability, consistent with a real pharmacological signal rather than pure psychogenic effect.
None of these patterns prove anything about whether any individual compound "works." They describe the texture of the data. The single most useful insight from cross-compound pattern analysis is that the variability of individual response is large — for any given compound and protocol, the response distribution across submitters is wide, with substantial fractions reporting strong positive effect, no effect, and (less commonly) negative effect. Population-average descriptions of compound effects obscure this distribution. Any individual researcher's response is poorly predicted by the population average.
Top-Submitted Compounds
| Compound | Submissions | Common Indication | Positive Effect Rate | Adverse Events |
|---|
| BPC-157 | ~860 | Soft-tissue injury | ~71% (subjective) | ~12% |
| Ipamorelin / CJC-1295 stack | ~520 | Recovery, sleep, body composition | ~64% | ~22% |
| TB-500 | ~340 | Soft-tissue injury | ~66% | ~9% |
| Semaglutide / Tirzepatide | ~310 | Weight loss | ~91% (objective weight loss) | ~48% (mostly GI) |
| GHK-Cu (topical) | ~220 | Skin, hair | ~58% | ~5% |
| Melanotan-II | ~180 | Tanning, libido | ~78% (tanning) | ~40% |
| Tesamorelin | ~140 | Body composition | ~62% | ~25% |
| MOTS-c | ~110 | Endurance, metabolism | ~52% | ~14% |
| SS-31 / Elamipretide | ~85 | Mitochondrial / fatigue | ~58% | ~10% |
| Epitalon | ~80 | Anti-aging / sleep | ~44% | ~7% |
Adverse-event rates above include any reported side effect at any severity. Severe events — those requiring medical attention or persistent symptoms beyond protocol completion — are substantially less common. The Semaglutide/Tirzepatide adverse-event rate is dominated by gastrointestinal effects (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation) characteristic of the GLP-1 receptor agonist class; severe pancreatitis or gallbladder events were reported by under 1% of submitters.
What We Do Not Include
The database excludes several categories of submission. Vendor-affiliated testimonials: identifiable submissions from sources with commercial interest in the compound are excluded regardless of content. Protocols with implausible parameters: doses well outside any defensible range, durations inconsistent with the claimed outcomes, or claims that are mechanistically impossible are excluded. Protocols involving compounds we do not consider research peptides (anabolic steroids, SARMs, ancillary compounds) are excluded — they belong in a different database. Submissions without enough specificity to evaluate (no compound named, no dose, no duration, no outcome) are excluded.
The exclusion criteria are applied at submission time and reviewed periodically. We do not retroactively re-curate the database, but we mark entries that have been challenged by other submitters with a "disputed" flag and the basis for the challenge.
How To Submit a Log
Useful submissions have the following structure: (1) compound and source vendor (or a description of the vendor sufficient to characterize it); (2) protocol parameters including dose, frequency, duration, route of administration, and any concurrent compounds; (3) baseline status — what you were before starting, including any pre-existing condition relevant to what you were trying to address; (4) objective measurements where possible — bodyweight, performance metrics, laboratory values, photographs; (5) outcome assessment with a clear distinction between subjective experience and objective change; (6) adverse events with severity and resolution; (7) follow-up reflections at least one month after protocol completion.
Submissions arrive at the editorial inbox via the channel listed on the contact page. We acknowledge every submission within a week and add publishable submissions to the queue. Add-to-database does not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or validation. It is a contribution to a database the community can audit for itself.
The Limits of Crowdsourced Evidence
This database is not a substitute for controlled clinical trial data. It cannot establish efficacy. It cannot characterize safety. It cannot identify rare adverse events. It is biased toward positive reports, subject to recall bias, and contaminated by placebo effects that are particularly large in injection-administered protocols with subjective outcomes. What it can do, and what we believe it does well, is surface patterns that survive across hundreds of independent submitters — patterns that are unlikely to be explained by any single submitter's bias. Where many independent researchers, using different vendors, in different contexts, report consistent effects on objectively measurable outcomes, the aggregate is informative even if no individual submission would meet a clinical-trial standard.
This is, in effect, the kind of evidence that the research-peptide community had to construct for itself because no formal research apparatus is going to construct it on their behalf. We are uncomfortable with the methodological limitations and explicit about them. We continue to publish the database because the alternative — leaving researchers with nothing but vendor marketing — is worse.
Where To Go From Here
Reading any individual page on this site is a slice of the picture. The full investigation continues across the related desks. If this article surfaced more questions than it answered, the following are the most directly relevant next reads.
Editorial Standards
This report is updated periodically. Discrepancies between our reporting and reality are taken seriously — if you have observed something that contradicts what is published here, send it to the editorial desk with documentation and we will revise. Our reporting is constrained by what can be sourced, verified, or directly observed. Where evidence is weak we say so. Where it is absent we do not invent.
Wild West & Peptides receives no compensation from any vendor mentioned in this report, runs no affiliate program, and has no commercial relationship with the research-peptide industry it covers.