Pipeline Log

Shared state so the fresh-each-run schedules don’t duplicate or lose track. Append-only; newest at top of each section.

Articles created (Article Engine)

Ingest runs (Schedule 3)

Radar runs (Schedule 1)

Topical cluster map

Pillars and their spokes (keep internal links pillar⇄spoke). Update as articles are added.

• Healing & Recovery → (spokes: dr-koniver-bpc-157-protocol-tissue-repair [physician protocol, links ⇄ bpc-157-complete-guide, bpc-157-results-timeline, bpc-157-gut-health, tb-500-healing, ipamorelin-beginners, best-healing-peptides]; bpc-157-tb-500-stack-wolverine-protocol [stack guide, links ⇄ bpc-157-complete-guide, tb-500-healing, bpc-157-results-timeline, ipamorelin-beginners, peptide-side-effects; products bpc-157-tb-500, bpc-157, tb-500, ghk-cu]; tb4-vs-tb-500 [comparison/explainer — the 43-aa TB4 vs 7-aa TB-500-fragment distinction, evidence asymmetry, mislabel/COA risk, cancer-risk nuance; links ⇄ tb-500-thymosin-beta-4-healing-research, bpc-157-tb-500-stack-wolverine-protocol, bpc-157-complete-guide, thymosin-alpha-1-immune-modulation, peptide-side-effects; products tb-500, bpc-157-tb-500]; bpc-157-clinical-trial-first-human-rct [news-anchored / research-literacy — the first registered human RCT (NCT07437547, double-blind placebo-controlled Phase 2, subQ ×14d + rehab, co-primary MRI injury-volume + return-to-sport endpoints for acute hamstring strain); honestly frames it against the thin prior human base (3 tiny uncontrolled pilots <30 subjects, the cancelled-2015 Phase-1, not FDA-approved) + the parallel TB-500 first human trial; turns the #1 “animal-only since 1993” objection into “registered but unreported”; links ⇄ bpc-157-complete-guide-2026-benefits-dosing, dr-koniver-bpc-157-protocol-tissue-repair, tb4-vs-tb-500, bpc-157-tb-500-stack-wolverine-protocol, how-to-read-peptide-studies-animal-to-human-dose-conversion, how-to-read-a-peptide-coa-hplc-purity-vs-identity; products bpc-157, tb-500, bpc-157-tb-500]; tb-500-clinical-trial-first-human-cardiovascular [news-anchored / research-literacy — the first registered human trial of the TB-500 (thymosin β4 17–23) fragment, NCT07487363, a Phase 1/2 placebo-controlled dose-escalation safety study in stable ASCVD (3 cohorts, 3:1 randomization, 8-wk dosing + 4-wk follow-up, safety primary / vascular+inflammation biomarkers exploratory); the counterintuitive “first TB-500 trial is cardiovascular, not musculoskeletal” hook explained via the actin/angiogenesis + Bock-Marquette-2004 cardiac rationale; the fragment-≠-full-length-TB4 caveat (this trial can’t validate the RGN-259 ocular Phase 3 / first-in-human TB4 Phase 1 data, which used full-length protein); paired as the sibling of the BPC-157 first-human-trial piece (“2026: the year peptides entered human trials”); links ⇄ bpc-157-clinical-trial-first-human-rct, tb4-vs-tb-500, bpc-157-tb-500-stack-wolverine-protocol, how-to-read-a-peptide-coa-hplc-purity-vs-identity, how-to-read-peptide-studies-animal-to-human-dose-conversion, peptide-side-effects-safety-guide-2026; products tb-500, bpc-157, bpc-157-tb-500]; rgn-259-thymosin-beta-4-eye-drops [evidence/explainer (research-literacy) — the human β4 Phase 3 data that “TB-500 has human data” claims actually point to: RGN-259, a full-length 43-aa thymosin β4 topical eye drop (RegeneRx/ReGenTree/HLB), studied for dry eye (ARISE-1/2/3, >1,600 pts, mixed) and neurotrophic keratopathy (SEER-1 Kang-2022 IJMS PMID 36613994 / NCT02600429 — 6/10 vs 1/8 healed but primary MISSED, p=0.0656, n=18; confirmatory SEER-3 FAILED on a placebo effect; SEER-2 ongoing; not FDA-approved); the two-misattribution thesis — full-length≠fragment AND topical-ocular≠systemic-injection — so the only human β4 efficacy data is the wrong molecule by the wrong route vs an injected TB-500 vial; reinforces tb4-vs-tb-500 + the COA/trust pillar and the “Phase 3 ≠ proven” literacy lesson; links ⇄ tb4-vs-tb-500, tb-500-clinical-trial-first-human-cardiovascular, tb-500-thymosin-beta-4-healing-research, thymosin-alpha-1-immune-modulation, how-to-read-a-peptide-coa-hplc-purity-vs-identity; products tb-500, thymosin-alpha-1, bpc-157-tb-500]; does-tb-500-have-human-trials [evidence/research-literacy HUB (trust pillar) — the decisive standalone answer to the PAA query “does TB-500 have human trials”: maps the ENTIRE human evidence base in one sorted table (RGN-259 ocular Phase 3 SEER/ARISE; recombinant full-length TB4 IV Phase 1 — Wang 2021 PMID 34346165 — safety only; the small ~10-pt cardiac stem-cell + ~73-pt dermal pilots; the fragment’s animal-only MSK reputation; NCT07487363 CV safety, no results) and scores each on a 3-question literacy test (same molecule? same route? endpoint met?) — every cited “human trial” fails ≥1, and the empty cell (injected fragment × finished efficacy trial) IS the answer; deliberately the cluster’s question-page hub sitting ABOVE rgn-259 (one molecule) + tb-500-clinical-trial (one trial), synthesising not duplicating; carries WADA S2 + not-FDA-approved + mass-spec-identity/COA sourcing; honest provenance split (clinical vs animal vs educational-secondary vs company-reported); links ⇄ tb4-vs-tb-500, rgn-259-thymosin-beta-4-eye-drops, tb-500-clinical-trial-first-human-cardiovascular, bpc-157-clinical-trial-first-human-rct, how-to-read-a-peptide-coa-hplc-purity-vs-identity, how-to-read-peptide-studies-animal-to-human-dose-conversion, peptide-side-effects-safety-guide-2026; products tb-500, bpc-157-tb-500]; …)
• Fat Loss / Metabolic → (spokes: how-to-keep-muscle-on-glp-1 [protocol/explainer, links ⇄ peptide-stack-for-fat-loss-glp1-gh-mots-c, retatrutide-vs-tirzepatide-comparison-2026, tesamorelin-vs-ipamorelin-fat-loss-comparison, peptide-side-effects-safety-guide-2026, best-peptides-for-muscle-growth-2026-beginners-advanced (cross-pillar); products tirzepatide, retatrutide, tesamorelin, ipamorelin, ipamorelin-tesamorelin]; peptide-stack-for-fat-loss-glp1-gh-mots-c [stack guide, links ⇄ peptide-stacking-guide, retatrutide-review, retatrutide-vs-tirzepatide, tesamorelin-visceral-fat, tesamorelin-vs-ipamorelin, ipamorelin-beginners, mots-c-energy-fat-loss, peptide-side-effects]; glp-1-cancer-risk-what-2026-research-shows [news-anchored GLP-1 safety/oncology; links ⇄ peptide-side-effects, peptide-stack-for-fat-loss, retatrutide-vs-tirzepatide, retatrutide-review, best-anti-aging-peptides (longevity cross-link)]; how-glp-1-works-for-weight-loss [mechanism explainer / pillar-mechanism page — the brain-gut-pancreas appetite circuits + plateau→multi-receptor framing; links ⇄ best-peptides-for-fat-loss-2026-complete-guide, retatrutide-vs-tirzepatide-comparison-2026, peptide-stack-for-fat-loss-glp1-gh-mots-c, how-to-keep-muscle-on-glp-1, glp-1-cancer-risk-what-2026-research-shows, peptide-side-effects-safety-guide-2026; products semaglutide, tirzepatide, retatrutide]; retatrutide-phase-3-results-triumph-1 [news-anchored — first Phase 3 readout (TRIUMPH-1) for the flagship triple agonist: 28.3% @ 12mg/80wk, treatment-regimen vs efficacy estimand split, TRIUMPH-4 OA-pain/LDL/prediabetes signals, glucagon-arm differentiator, honest topline/not-FDA-approved grading; links ⇄ retatrutide-vs-tirzepatide-comparison-2026, retatrutide-review-2026-triple-agonist-weight-loss, retatrutide-dosing-guide-protocol, how-glp-1-works-for-weight-loss, glp-1-cancer-risk-what-2026-research-shows, how-to-keep-muscle-on-glp-1; products retatrutide, tirzepatide, semaglutide]; orforglipron-foundayo-oral-glp-1-pill [news-anchored / comparison — the first oral non-peptide GLP-1 (Foundayo, FDA-approved 2026-04-01); the peptide-vs-small-molecule divide (SNAC oral-sema ~1–2% BA vs orforglipron ~79%), ATTAIN-1 obesity 36mg = −11.2%/72wk, the honest ACHIEVE-3 caveat (beat only the low 7/14mg diabetes oral-sema doses, not obesity’s 25/50mg), the convenience-not-magnitude verdict, six-step 0.8→17.2mg titration + pricing, CYP3A4/danuglipron/heart-rate safety + missing end-outcome data; consolidates the two backlog orforglipron items; orforglipron is NOT a catalog product (contrast only); links ⇄ how-glp-1-works-for-weight-loss, peptide-bioavailability-by-route-oral-vs-injection, retatrutide-vs-tirzepatide-comparison-2026, retatrutide-phase-3-results-triumph-1, how-to-keep-muscle-on-glp-1; products semaglutide, tirzepatide, retatrutide]; best-glp-1-for-weight-loss-2026-ranked [comparison/ranking pillar-hub — the GLP-1 weight-loss CLASS ranked by mean weight loss with the cross-trial-comparison caveat as the core differentiator: retatrutide ~28.3% (TRIUMPH-1, investigational) > tirzepatide ~22.5% (SURMOUNT-1, approved, won SURMOUNT-5 head-to-head 20.2 vs 13.7%) > CagriSema ~20.4% (REDEFINE-1, under review) > oral sema ~15.1% (OASIS-1) ≈ subQ sema ~14.9% (STEP-1) > orforglipron ~11.2% (ATTAIN-1, approved, oral non-peptide); teaches estimand (treatment-regimen vs efficacy) + population + head-to-head-only honesty; choose-by-metric decision framework (max-efficacy / approved-now / proven-outcomes / convenience / amylin); the 3-way+oral CLASS page, distinct from the head-to-head retatrutide-vs-tirzepatide and from the broad best-peptides-for-fat-loss guide; links ⇄ how-glp-1-works-for-weight-loss, retatrutide-vs-tirzepatide-comparison-2026, retatrutide-phase-3-results-triumph-1, orforglipron-foundayo-oral-glp-1-pill, glp-1-cancer-risk-what-2026-research-shows, how-to-keep-muscle-on-glp-1; products retatrutide, tirzepatide, semaglutide, cagrilintide-semaglutide]; tirzepatide-vs-semaglutide-surmount-5 [comparison/head-to-head — the class’s ONLY large direct obesity head-to-head: SURMOUNT-5 (NEJMoa2410819, Phase 3b open-label, 751 pts, no-diabetes), max-vs-max obesity doses (tirz 10/15mg vs sema 1.7/2.4mg, 72wk), tirz 20.2% vs sema 13.7% (p<0.001; 22.8 vs 15.0kg; ≥25% 31.6 vs 16.1%, ≥30% 19.7 vs 6.9%; waist −18.4 vs −13.0cm; AEs similar); the fair-dose contrast vs SURPASS-2 (sema 1mg diabetes dose), the GIP-arm mechanism for the gap, and the 4 things it does NOT settle (hard outcomes — sema’s CV/kidney edge; open-label+industry-funded; lean mass; cost + retatrutide ceiling); converts the cross-trial caveat the ranking hub keeps flagging into one measured contest; distinct from best-glp-1 hub (data table) and retatrutide-vs-tirzepatide (different pair); links ⇄ best-glp-1-for-weight-loss-2026-ranked, how-glp-1-works-for-weight-loss, retatrutide-vs-tirzepatide-comparison-2026, retatrutide-phase-3-results-triumph-1, glp-1-cancer-risk-what-2026-research-shows, how-to-keep-muscle-on-glp-1; products tirzepatide, semaglutide, retatrutide]; tirzepatide-vs-semaglutide-diabetes-surpass-2 [comparison/head-to-head — the class’s ONLY large direct DIABETES head-to-head (SURPASS-2, Frías 2021 NEJMoa2107519, NCT03987919, 40wk open-label, 1,879 T2D on metformin): tirz 5/10/15mg vs sema 1mg → tirz lower A1C at every dose (15mg −2.46% vs −1.86%) + ~2× weight (−12.4kg/−13.1% vs −6.2kg/−6.7%); composite A1C≤6.5%+≥10%-loss+no-severe-hypo ~60% vs ~22%, A1C<5.7% ~51% vs ~20%; the KEY caveat = sema tested at its 1mg diabetes dose, NOT the 2.0mg later approved (SUSTAIN FORTE, Lancet D&E 2021) — the mirror-image dose asterisk to SURMOUNT-5’s 2.4mg, so the two head-to-heads read together show tirz ahead at sema-low (diabetes) AND sema-max (obesity); GIP-arm mechanism for the gap; does-NOT-settle = hard outcomes (sema’s CV/kidney edge), the 2.0mg gap, open-label+industry-funded, estimands+durability; distinct from surmount-5 (obesity, weight primary, sema 2.4mg) and the best-glp-1 hub; links ⇄ tirzepatide-vs-semaglutide-surmount-5, best-glp-1-for-weight-loss-2026-ranked, how-glp-1-works-for-weight-loss, retatrutide-vs-tirzepatide-comparison-2026; products tirzepatide, semaglutide, retatrutide]; tesamorelin comparison, …)
• Growth Hormone Axis → (spokes: how-to-choose-growth-hormone-peptide-2026 [comparison/decision guide; links ⇄ best-growth-hormone-peptides-2026-compared, cjc-1295-ipamorelin-stack-gold-standard-gh-release, tesamorelin-visceral-fat-belly-fat-2026, tesamorelin-vs-ipamorelin-fat-loss-comparison, ipamorelin-gentle-growth-hormone-peptide-beginners, ipamorelin-selective-gh-secretagogue, cjc-1295-no-dac-ghrh-analog, hgh-peptide-therapy-benefits-risks-vs-secretagogues-2026, glp-1-cancer-risk-what-2026-research-shows (cross-pillar); products sermorelin, tesamorelin, cjc-1295-no-dac, ipamorelin, ipamorelin-tesamorelin]; cjc-1295-dac-vs-no-dac [comparison/mechanism explainer — the pulse-amplitude problem; links ⇄ how-to-choose-growth-hormone-peptide-2026 (pillar), cjc-1295-no-dac-growth-hormone-guide, cjc-1295-ipamorelin-stack-gold-standard-gh-release, peptide-side-effects-safety-guide-2026; products cjc-1295-dac, cjc-1295-no-dac, sermorelin]; mk-677-vs-cjc-1295 [comparison/mechanism — the flat-curve head-to-head: reframes “MK-677 vs CJC-1295” around which CJC-1295 (DAC vs no-DAC), then exposes MK-677 + CJC-1295-DAC as mechanistic twins that both raise the GH trough (~3.5× vs ~7.5×) into a flat elevated baseline — the opposite of the pulse amplitude aging erodes — with no-DAC the pulsatile outlier; honest evidence-grading hook = MK-677 is the MOST human-studied GH secretagogue yet looks worst (Nass 2008 2-yr RCT: +1.1kg FFM but no strength gain + worsened insulin sensitivity; Adunsky 2011 hip-fracture phase-IIb halted on a CHF signal 6.5 vs 1.7%), vs CJC-DAC’s tiny phase-1 PK (Teichman 2006) + death-terminated unpublished phase-2; covers the CJC-DAC-weekly+MK-677-nightly “double-flat” combo vs the physiologic GHRH+ipamorelin alternative; links UP ⇄ cjc-1295-dac-vs-no-dac (pulse-amplitude explainer), how-to-choose-growth-hormone-peptide-2026 (pillar), cjc-1295-ipamorelin-stack-gold-standard-gh-release, peptide-side-effects-safety-guide-2026; products mk-677-capsules, cjc-1295-dac, cjc-1295-no-dac, ipamorelin, sermorelin]; ghrh-ghrp-synergy-why-stack-gh-peptides [mechanism/concept explainer — the class-level why behind every GHRH-base+GHRP pairing: two receptors (GHRH-R vs GHS-R1a) on the same somatotroph fire two independent pathways → supra-additive GH (Bowers 1990 PMID 2108187 human demo; the ~66% figure flagged as a secondary educational-synthesis estimate), AND the GHRP simultaneously releases the somatostatin brake; the standout angle the two stack pages miss = the desensitization rescue (GHRP monotherapy fails — GHS-R1a desensitizes + chronic GHRP raises somatostatin, hexarelin 16-wk → IGF-1 stalls; GHRH desensitizes less AND upregulates GHS-R synthesis → ‘use a GHRP only with a GHRH, never alone’); synergy amplifies pulse amplitude not baseline, so pulsatile ipamorelin synergizes better than continuous MK-677; deliberately a mechanism page (not a protocol), distinct from the two CJC+ipamorelin stack articles it complements; honest grading (no-DAC has no human studies, synergy≠outcomes, insulin-resistance/U-shaped-mortality, research-use-only); links UP ⇄ how-to-choose-growth-hormone-peptide-2026 (pillar), cjc-1295-ipamorelin-stack-gold-standard-gh-release (protocol companion), cjc-1295-dac-vs-no-dac + mk-677-vs-cjc-1295 (pulse-vs-flat), ipamorelin-selective-gh-secretagogue, peptide-side-effects-safety-guide-2026; products cjc-1295-no-dac-ipamorelin, ipamorelin, cjc-1295-no-dac, sermorelin, tesamorelin, ipamorelin-tesamorelin, mk-677-capsules]; growth-hormone-peptide-timing [mechanism/concept explainer — the when spoke that completes the GH-Axis cluster: why GH secretagogues are dosed at night, fasted. Anchored on primary human sleep-GH physiology the competitor protocol pages never cite — Takahashi 1968 (PMID 5675428: the big GH pulse appears with deep-sleep onset and is delayed when sleep onset is delayed; an awakening+resleep produces a fresh pulse) + Van Cauter & Plat 1996 (PMID 8627466: ~70% of nocturnal GH pulses coincide with slow-wave sleep, amount tracks SWS amount). Three-reason night rationale (somatostatin nadir / ride the body’s biggest pulse / less desensitization + sleep synergy); the empty-stomach half (food→somatostatin+insulin blunts the pulse, ~3–4h fasted, ~60% blunting flagged as educational-synthesis); the practical 30–45-min pulse-peak vs 30–90-min deep-sleep-onset arithmetic (inject base+GHRP together, last thing before bed); the long-acting/oral EXCEPTION (CJC-DAC + MK-677 flat-curve → timing matters less, the SERP’s biggest blind spot) + second-dose-only-for-CJC+ipa / no-third-dose; and the secretagogue-timing-≠-rhGH-timing distinction (Levshtein 2025 PMID 40034226: evening rhGH better mimics diurnal pattern, comparable growth/IGF-1). Honest U-shaped-mortality + insulin-resistance grading; provenance note splits clinical vs educational. Deliberately the timing page, distinct from the synergy why-stack and the choose/amplitude/flat-curve spokes. Links ⇄ ghrh-ghrp-synergy-why-stack-gh-peptides, how-to-choose-growth-hormone-peptide-2026 (pillar), cjc-1295-dac-vs-no-dac, mk-677-vs-cjc-1295, hgh-peptide-therapy-benefits-risks-vs-secretagogues-2026, peptide-side-effects-safety-guide-2026; products sermorelin, cjc-1295-no-dac, ipamorelin, tesamorelin, cjc-1295-no-dac-ipamorelin, ipamorelin-tesamorelin, cjc-1295-dac, mk-677-capsules, melatonin]; …)
• Longevity → (epitalon, SS-31, longevity ranking, …)
• Skin & Hair → (GHK-Cu, …)
• Research Literacy / Methodology (cross-cluster hub) → (spokes: does-phase-3-mean-approved [research-literacy/trust explainer — promotes the 3rd axis of the does-tb-500 question test (“Phase 3” names a trial’s stage, not its result) into a standalone evergreen spoke the whole site links UP to: what each phase tests (FDA Step 3 table), stage-vs-success (a completed trial can miss its primary endpoint — SEER-1 p=0.0656, SEER-3 failed), the success-rate arithmetic (BIO 2011-2020 LOA from Phase 1 = 7.9%; FDA ~70% clear Ph1, ~33% Ph2→Ph3; ~half of Phase-3 drugs still fail; Wong 2019 ~13.8% overall / 3.4% oncology), the “clinically studied”≠“clinically proven” weasel-phrase decode (Murphy 2023 — readers misremember “studied” as “proven”), and a 5-question test (stage+finished / primary endpoint met / peer-review vs press-release / approved-by-whom-for-what / same-molecule+route); the trust-pillar sibling of how-to-read-clinicaltrials.gov (pending); links ⇄ does-tb-500-have-human-trials, rgn-259-thymosin-beta-4-eye-drops, tb-500-clinical-trial-first-human-cardiovascular, retatrutide-phase-3-results-triumph-1, how-to-read-peptide-studies-animal-to-human-dose-conversion, how-to-read-a-peptide-coa-hplc-purity-vs-identity, peptide-side-effects-safety-guide-2026; products tb-500, bpc-157, retatrutide]; how-to-read-peptide-studies-animal-to-human-dose-conversion [methodology explainer — FDA Kₘ body-surface-area scaling + IP→SubQ route adjustment + worked HED examples for 6 peptides; an evergreen hub every protocol article can link UP to when it cites an animal dose; links ⇄ peptide-stacking-guide-2026-combining-peptides-safely, peptide-side-effects-safety-guide-2026, bpc-157-complete-guide-2026-benefits-dosing, tb-500-thymosin-beta-4-healing-research; products bpc-157, tb-500, mots-c, ss-31, selank, ghk-cu]; peptide-bioavailability-by-route-oral-vs-injection [methodology explainer — the route→effective-dose relationship: IV 100% / SubQ ~70% / IP ~40%-over-SubQ / oral <1–5% / intranasal nose-to-brain; peptide-specific numbers for semaglutide (subQ 89% vs oral ~1%), BPC-157 (subQ 35–50% / oral 20–35% local-only), TB-500 (no oral), Selank (intranasal); orforglipron non-peptide contrast; links UP to the dose-conversion hub; links ⇄ how-to-read-peptide-studies-animal-to-human-dose-conversion, intranasal-peptide-delivery-nose-to-brain, bpc-157-complete-guide-2026-benefits-dosing, bpc-157-gut-health-leaky-gut-ibs, how-glp-1-works-for-weight-loss, peptide-side-effects-safety-guide-2026, peptide-stacking-guide-2026-combining-peptides-safely; products semaglutide, bpc-157, bpc-capsules, tb-500, selank-nasal-spray, mots-c]; how-to-read-a-peptide-coa-hplc-purity-vs-identity [sourcing/trust literacy explainer — the purity-vs-identity split: HPLC purity % vs mass-spec identity (the one-direction m