If it is about Humanin, this isn't completely accurate. We've been on this Humanin issue forever. Vendors have gotten the other Mitochondrial peps bang on. Humanin on the other hand, we don't know if it is the synthesis, or it is the Testing. Domestic labs return test with higher purity and quantity than Jano. Vendors that test little quantity but high purity with Jano would sometimes test High quantity but dodgy purity with Jano. One vendor tested decently (both Jano and Prime) and I bought a batch of Humanin from them. It might have been the worst humanin in the market. Left me with itchy welts the size of Texas. I simply gave up on Humanin, especially after moving beyond all the touted anti-aging and cardioprotective benefits to see that the pathway to these benefits might(or actually) involve(s) a lowering of IGF-1 (reduced IGF being a marker of longer life).
A lot of the things we know about non-glp UGL peptides do not arise from the 'peptide world' if peptide world refers to what some derogatorily refer to as 'karen glp moms'.
Health buffs have been injecting peptides and chems way before the GLP folks entered the game. I doubt it was the typical GLP user data that prominent figures like Dr Seeds and Khavinson used to generate their protocols.
So while i would criticize someone whose protocol is 23 peptides, it's from people like that I gather info on what is bad, what's probably placebo and what negates what

.
There are many things we don't have enough info on as pharma either gave up on, or used different parameters for. There are even things folks use that are untested in humans, and we have used pharma principles to calculate their human equivalent doses, and gone ahead to use/test. We need as much anecdotal info for some things as much as possible albeit obtained as safely as possible.