Who pays for this,
and what it does not buy.
Arkham Labs editorial/Published 8 September 2026/Corrections policy
Stated in full rather than summarised, because a summary is where this kind of thing usually goes to hide.
The relationships
Direct-to-researcher supplier of research-use peptides. US-based, ships from New York. Arkham Labs earns a referral commission on purchases made through links on this site.
Business-to-business supplier to med spas, clinics and physician practices. Arkham Labs earns a referral commission on accounts opened through links on this site.
Both relationships are real, ongoing, and the primary source of revenue for this publication. There is no third relationship, no undisclosed sponsorship, and no paid placement of any compound in the library.
What the money does not buy
- It does not set evidence grades. Grades follow the published rule from the literature alone. Twenty-nine of sixty-eight guides here — including compounds both businesses sell in volume — carry the lowest grade in the system.
- It does not determine which compounds are covered. Coverage follows reader questions and the availability of peer-reviewed sources.
- It does not soften limitations. The limitations section is written before the referral block exists on the page.
- It does not buy pre-publication review. Neither business sees a guide before it is published, and neither has ever been given the opportunity to request a change.
- It does not buy silence. Where a supplier’s documentation fails a check described in the sourcing explainers, that is reported.
How to verify this
- Every referral link is labelled as a referral at the point of the link, not only in a footer.
- Referral links carry a visible tracking parameter —
utm_source=arkhamlabs— and are markedrel="nofollow sponsored". Nothing is cloaked or redirected through an intermediate domain. - The grade for any compound sold by either business can be checked against the grading rule on the standards page.
- Revision histories are published per guide, so grade changes can be checked against the papers that caused them.
Why disclose it this openly
A store that publishes looks like an advertisement. A publication that recommends a store looks like a review. The second reading is worth more, and it is only available to a publication that states the relationship plainly and then demonstrates, compound by compound, that the relationship did not move the assessment. Concealing it would be worth less than disclosing it, before any question of whether concealing it would be right.
For laboratory research use only. Not for human consumption. Nothing here is medical advice.