If you are quoted here and the record is wrong
Mentions are recorded as a short verbatim excerpt with a link, and we never paraphrase a named person’s position — a summary of what somebody "thinks" about a compound is exactly the artefact that turns a warning into an endorsement. A wrong attribution can still exist, and this is how you tell us.
What we record about you, and what we refuse to infer
A mention is a short verbatim excerpt, a link, a date, and — where a transcript exists — a stance. We do not paraphrase what a named person thinks about a compound, because “Dr. X mentioned BPC-157” reads as an endorsement even when the speaker was warning against it.
Stance is stored as one of four values and displayed in different words on purpose: supportive, neutral, cautionary, or unclassified. A physician saying “there is no good evidence for this” is being accurate, not opposing anything, and publishing that under a label implying opposition is itself a mischaracterisation. Nearly every mention in this corpus is currently unclassified, because most sources have no retrievable transcript and we will not read a position off a headline. Why, with the current figures.
None of that makes a wrong record impossible. An excerpt can be clipped badly, a mention can be attributed to the wrong person, and a commercial tie can be recorded that does not exist. Those are our errors and we will fix them. Mentions feed no evidence grade and no vendor score — they are attention data — so correcting one changes what the site says about you and changes no number anywhere else.
Removal is available and it is a decision, not a switch. Where a record cannot be made accurate, it comes down. Where it is accurate and correctly attributed, we will note a correction rather than erase the history — including if your view has since changed, which is a fact about a date rather than an error about it.
What we will do
- Correct a stance that mischaracterises what you said. Stance is corrected independently of the mention: saying "there is no good evidence for this" is being accurate, not opposing anything, and a label implying otherwise is our error.
- Correct or remove an excerpt that is not what you said.
- Detach a mention attributed to you that you did not make.
- Correct your recorded credentials, affiliations, or commercial disclosure.
- Remove a mention on request where the record cannot be made accurate.
- Keep every extraction pass behind the wrong value, because that is the evidence the correction was needed — the correction is appended, never a quiet overwrite.
What we will not do
- Remove a mention because you have changed your position since. The record is of what was published on a date, and we will note a correction rather than erase the history.
- Remove a mention of a peptide you would rather not be associated with, where the mention is accurate and attributed correctly.
- Act on a request from somebody other than the person named or their representative.
- Apply anything you ask for automatically. A request is recorded and reviewed by a person.
- Verify your identity. We cannot, so standing is recorded as asserted and weighed by a human.
How long it takes
We aim to acknowledge a request within 5 working days.
We aim to reach a decision within 20 working days, and the decision is recorded with its reason whichever way it goes.
Both figures are targets set by one person with no team behind them, not commitments. Every request stores the date it arrived, so how long it actually took is a fact rather than a recollection.
What this form accepts, and what it does not
The honest version- Bounded, because it is unauthenticated. The claim field takes at most 2,000 characters, every other field is capped, and the caps are enforced by the database rather than by this page. At most 3 undecided requests may be open against one record, at most 5 may come from one address in 24 hours, and at most 60 arrive in any 1-hour window across everybody.
- The last of those can refuse a real request. It is a ceiling on rows per hour, so a flood spends it for everyone until the window rolls forward. That cost is accepted: an unbounded write into this database from the open internet is worse. Nothing is queued when it trips — you are told plainly, and nothing was stored.
- The per-record limit is a queue depth, not a defence. Where you supply a record reference it is keyed on that exact row. Where you do not, it is keyed on the page URL you give us — normalised, so a query string or a trailing slash does not make a second record, but a different path does. Somebody determined to file more can, and what actually bounds that is the per-address and hourly limits above, neither of which depends on a value you choose.
- No identity check, and none claimed. The relationship you state is recorded as stated. Your address is not verified. A request purporting to come from someone else is possible, which is one more reason a person decides.
- No attachments. Link a document instead. We do not accept uploads, which removes a whole class of abuse from an unauthenticated form.
- Your text is stored as text. It is never rendered as markup anywhere, on any surface. A correction request is attacker-authored by definition and is treated that way regardless of who sent it.