Every figure, regulatory reference, and verification step on this site is checked against a primary source before it goes into an article. This page sets out exactly how — so you can judge our reporting by the same standard we ask you to apply to any peptide source: on the evidence, not the claim.
An article on The Dispatch starts from a real question a buyer in London would ask before acting — what a legitimate Certificate of Analysis actually contains, what the MHRA has said about a specific compound class, how to tell an independent laboratory from an in-house one. We do not start from a product angle and work backwards to a justification for it.
Every factual claim is drafted against a primary source first: the text of the relevant MHRA guidance, a peer-reviewed study, or the compound's own regulatory record — not a summary someone else has already written. A second pass checks that each claim can be traced back to that named source before the article is published. If a claim cannot be sourced this way, it is cut from the draft, not softened and left in.
The one commercial relationship this site carries — a disclosed affiliate link — plays no role in how an article is researched or written. Editorial content and that link are produced separately, and the disclosure appears on every page where the link does.
For claims about peptide chemistry, purity analysis, or verification methods such as HPLC and LC-MS, we work from primary literature indexed on PubMed rather than secondary write-ups of that literature. Where a claim rests on a single study rather than a broad consensus, we say so plainly instead of presenting it as settled science.
For anything touching legality or regulatory status in the United Kingdom, our source is the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) directly — the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, the Medicines Act 1968, and published MHRA guidance and enforcement notices — rather than forum consensus or supplier marketing copy. Where a primary regulatory text exists, we link to it, so a reader can check it rather than take our summary on faith.
We do not treat seller-provided data sheets, in-house lab reports, or promotional blog posts as sources for factual claims on this site, regardless of how they are formatted.
Regulatory and legal content is the most time-sensitive part of this site, so MHRA-related pages are checked against current guidance at least once a quarter, and sooner whenever the MHRA issues a notice relevant to peptides or unlicensed medicines. Other articles — on reading a COA, laboratory accreditation, and counterfeit indicators — are reviewed at least twice a year.
Every page carries a visible "last updated" reference, so a reader can see how current the content is without needing to ask.
The Dispatch does not sell peptides, and nothing on this site should be read as an instruction to use one. We do not give medical advice, and we do not tell a reader what to take or how — that is a conversation for a licensed healthcare professional, not a website.
Our tone is deliberately informative rather than alarmist. We set out the legal and quality-control picture as it currently stands and let readers draw their own conclusions, rather than using fear to push a decision either way. If a claim about purity, safety, or legality cannot be attributed to a named source, it does not appear on this site.
Regulatory guidance changes, laboratories update their accreditation status, and sources occasionally turn out to be wrong — including ours. When a factual error is identified, whether through our own review cycle or a reader flagging it, we correct the article directly and update its "last updated" date rather than rewriting it quietly.
We do not currently run a public comments section or list a dedicated contact address on this site, and we would rather say that plainly than leave a reader guessing. Until that changes, the review cadence described above is what keeps this content current and correct.