About

Who we are

The Open Peptide Project is an open, patient-led evidence library, batch-testing project, and observational registry. People who have already decided to use a research peptide log their experience in a structured way, and we turn that into data anyone can check.

We don't sell, supply, assign, or recommend anything. We only record what people were already going to do.

Who runs it

The name might sound like a consortium. It isn't one. The project is run by Adam Greene. It is self-funded, and no university, pharmaceutical company, or outside institution stands behind it.

Adam runs the project personally for now while we form a nonprofit organization, and this page will be updated as soon as the nonprofit is registered.

In the interest of full disclosure: Peptide Hall, a peptide seller, is owned by Caleb Greene, a family member of the project lead. Caleb holds no stake in the project. Peptide Hall never advertises here, and its batches are always labeled as related-party results. Full details are on our Disclosure page.

What “Open” means

“Open” is a promise, and here is what it covers:

  • Open data. De-identified registry data and analysis are published, including results that show nothing.
  • Open method. The protocol, analysis plan, testing standard, and code are public, so anyone can reproduce or criticize our work.
  • Open test results. Every batch result is published with its batch number and test date, pass or fail.

How batch testing works: the Open Peptide Standard

  • Every test sample is bought anonymously, at full retail price, the way you would. We never accept free vials, and vendor certificates don't count.
  • Samples go to an ISO/IEC 17025-accredited lab, labeled only with a project code.
  • We check every lab report against the lab's own verification system before it goes up.
  • Every result is published within 7 days of arrival, including failures, with batch numbers. A result belongs strictly to one batch, never to a vendor, and it expires after a stated period.
  • The three-tier test panel and tiered purity grades (A+ at ≥98.0% with a Pharma-comparable impurity flag when no single unidentified impurity exceeds 0.5%, Pass at 96.0–97.9%, Caution at 92.0–95.9%, and Fail below 92.0% or failed identity/endotoxin/sterility) are detailed on our Testing standard page.

A batch result is a safety check, not a recommendation. It tells you whether a specific batch matched its label when we tested it. It says nothing about whether you should use it, or about any other batch.

Why patient-led research can work

  • PatientsLikeMe and lithium in ALS. After a small study suggested lithium might slow ALS, some patients began taking it. Lithium is an approved drug, and they got it off-label through their own doctors. Using data these patients reported on PatientsLikeMe, researchers matched 149 lithium users with 447 similar patients who weren't taking it. They found no effect on disease progression at 12 months, and later randomized trials agreed (Wicks et al., Nature Biotechnology, 2011). The authors were clear that this kind of analysis doesn't replace randomized trials. We say the same about our registry.
  • Patient-Led Research Collaborative and long COVID. A team of patients surveyed 3,762 people with long COVID across 56 countries and documented symptoms many studies had missed (Davis et al., eClinicalMedicine, 2021).

We share these as examples of patient-led research done well, not as proof that our own design works. We'll earn that through our own published results.

What we are not

We are not a clinic or a store. We don't give dosing advice or link to suppliers. Talk to a licensed clinician about your health.

Ethics

This is a decentralized, patient-led observational registry, and our Study Protocol (v1.1) is published openly. We have selected independent IRB oversight (Option B): participant enrollment in our observational cohorts will open only after our protocol and electronic informed consent receive an independent Institutional Review Board (IRB) determination and complete legal review. Reader contributions at launch help fund our initial blind lab tests and independent IRB review fee. Until enrollment opens, the Evidence Library and Testing Standard are open to everyone.