# About AOD-9604 Reviews — Independent editorial publisher > AOD-9604 Reviews is an independent editorial project that publishes summaries of the peer-reviewed research literature on AOD-9604. We are not a clinic, we do not sell any product, and the 'reviews' in our name refers to our editorial review of the published record. AOD-9604 Reviews is an independent editorial publication. We summarise the peer-reviewed research literature on AOD-9604; we do not treat patients and we do not sell any product. ## What we are AOD-9604 Reviews is an independent editorial project that publishes summaries of the peer-reviewed research literature on AOD-9604. We are not a clinic. We do not employ clinicians and we do not provide medical advice. We do not manufacture, sell, or distribute any product. Our work is editorial commentary on publicly available science. The site is organised as a series of discrete exhibits — opening plate, research, dosage, FAQ, references, about, contact — each handling one face of the AOD-9604 record. The studio-portfolio framing is deliberate: AOD-9604's history is not a single continuous narrative but a sequence of distinct pieces of evidence (a foundational preclinical study, six METAOD trials, a Phase IIb failure, a corporate pivot, a rabbit study, a GRAS self-affirmation, a 2024 FDA committee vote, an ongoing WADA prohibition), and we read those pieces best when we look at them one at a time. ## What the word 'reviews' does and does not mean here The 'reviews' in this site's name refers to our editorial activity — reviewing the published research record — not to consumer product reviews and not to clinical reviews of individual patients. Nothing on this site is a recommendation to obtain or use AOD-9604, and nothing on this site should be read as medical advice. The domain modifier is editorial framing: a position the publisher occupies relative to the literature, not a claim about services offered. We do not consult, prescribe, dispense, refer, or counsel. A practical consequence: when we write 'AOD-9604 was studied at 500 μg/kg/day in obese Zucker rats,' we mean that and only that — a description of what an investigator administered to a research animal in a peer-reviewed study, with the citation attached [1]. It is not a dose suggestion. The regulatory record around AOD-9604 is unusually crisp on this point: the obesity programme is closed, the U.S. 503A compounding route is closed, no human cartilage trial has been registered, and the WADA Section S2 prohibition is in force [5][14][16]. We summarise that record; we do not work around it. ## How we source and how we cite Every quantitative or factual claim on this site maps to a numbered citation in the /references index. Primary sources are peer-reviewed research papers (Hormone Research, International Journal of Obesity, Endocrinology, Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science, Cartilage, Drug Testing and Analysis), the December 2024 FDA Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee materials, the WADA Prohibited List, and one piece of contemporaneous trade reporting from the Calzada-era 2012 pivot announcement. Where a DOI is available it is included; where the canonical link is to PubMed, PMC, or a regulatory docket, the URL is the canonical address. We do not link out to other peptide-portfolio sites, we do not embed affiliate links, and we do not run advertising. If a claim is not in the published record, it is not in our copy. ## Editorial standards Three standards govern what appears on this site. First, the published record is the ceiling: we do not extend or extrapolate beyond what investigators reported. Second, regulatory status is reported as it stands — the obesity programme closed in 2007, the FDA PCAC voted in December 2024 not to add AOD-9604 to the 503A Bulks List, the WADA prohibition is in force, the GRAS self-affirmation is a food-ingredient status and not a drug approval [5][14][15][16]. Third, the limits of the evidence are stated alongside the evidence — a single rabbit study is described as a single rabbit study, the failed Phase IIb is described as failed, and the safety pool is described as the safety pool it actually is. This site is an editorial research digest — an independent publication that indexes the AOD-9604 record. It is not affiliated with any vendor, clinic, or compounding pharmacy, and it does not carry sponsored content. --- An indexed review of the published record — not a clinic, not a vendor, not a recommendation.