Skip to main content
Independent peptide information No peptide sales Sources shown

Independence

Funding and conflicts of interest

The publication is independently self-funded. It has no current revenue stream, commercial funder, sponsorship, affiliate arrangement or paid placement.

What’s in the Vial? is independently funded by Yianni Kiromitis. The site currently earns no revenue and has received no commercial funding, grant, sponsorship, affiliate commission, free product or paid testing support.

Yianni Kiromitis, Eleni Kiromitis and Dr Stavroula Nikitopoulou have declared no relevant financial conflicts for the work described here. A future relationship will be disclosed before it affects content.

Current declaration · 10 August 2026

Current funding position

Operating costs are paid by Yianni Kiromitis. There is no reader subscription, advertising income, grant, sponsorship, affiliate commission, supplier referral payment or laboratory referral income.

This declaration covers the publication at the review date. It does not promise that funding will never change. Any change must be named here with its effective date and disclosed on affected pages before the relationship begins.

Future models that require disclosure

None of these models is active. Each would require a named disclosure, an editorial-independence test and an update to this page before launch.

  • Reader support
    Subscriptions, membership or donations that do not purchase a verdict.
  • Grants
    Named funders, conditions and any influence on topic selection disclosed.
  • Non-seller sponsorship
    Accepted only with clear separation from evidence findings and visible disclosure.

Relationships excluded on principle

These arrangements create incentives that conflict with the publication's central task.

  • Peptide or research-vial sales
    The publication will not sell the products it assesses.
  • Seller referral fees or affiliate links
    No payment for directing readers to an experimental peptide seller.
  • Paid placement in a verdict
    No sponsor can buy inclusion, ranking, wording or a favourable finding.
  • Supplier comparison or recommendation fees
    The site will not publish seller rankings or supplier recommendations.

How will a relevant conflict be disclosed?

A disclosure should name the relationship, the organisation or person involved, the part of the work it could affect and the steps taken to manage it. A footer-level statement cannot replace a page-level disclosure when the relationship concerns the claim being assessed.

Authors and reviewers also declare relevant interests through the editorial governance process.

How will funding remain separate from verdicts?

Evidence findings follow the published claim-level method. A funder cannot select a verdict, suppress an unfavourable result or replace a cited source with promotional material. Any arrangement that requires those rights will be refused.

The evidence rating method and change log let readers inspect whether the finding follows the same rules before and after a funding change.

Can a laboratory relationship create a conflict?

Yes. Payment for analytical work, free testing, access to data or a referral arrangement can affect perceived independence. Any such relationship would be named beside the affected report, together with who selected the sample, who paid, the chain of custody and the laboratory's role.

A laboratory result still supports only the attribute measured. Commercial independence cannot repair a method that did not measure the claimed attribute.

What happens when the funding position changes?

This page will be updated when a revenue source or commercial relationship begins, ends or changes. The update will state the effective date and enter the public corrections and versions record when the change could affect how readers judge past work.

Why the exclusions were set before monetisation

The publication was designed around a seller-dominated information problem. We fixed the exclusions before choosing a revenue model so the business model would have to fit the editorial promise, rather than rewriting the promise around a later commercial opportunity.

The refusal is part of the product

No dosing, sourcing, supplier ranking or seller referral path will be added as a substitute for evidence and safe-action routes.

See what we will not publish

MethodThe evidence rules funding cannot changeSee how claim scope, sources, verdicts and unknowns are handled. Publisher incentivesWhy most peptide guidance is written by sellersCheck who benefits from the guidance before relying on it. Editorial boundaryWhat we will not publishSee the content and commercial routes excluded from the site.

Editorial experience

From our work: how we checked this page

For topical-map item C-006, Funding and conflicts of interest was checked as a distinct editorial task, not treated as a generic peptide page. We reviewed 0 unique external sources and 4 internal destinations in the page, then checked that the opening answer, headings, source descriptions and linked next steps stayed within the same claim boundary. The count records links in the published page and is not a claim that every source carries equal evidential weight.

Yianni Kiromitis checked the page against its mapped purpose, verified the cited sources, reviewed the internal routes and approved the final wording as Lead Author, Publisher and Managing Editor. This page does not carry a specialist review credit because its publication decision did not require a scientific or clinical conclusion beyond the named material it links to.

We did not use patient experience, a personal treatment outcome, seller testimony or an assumed product identity to support this page. The publication did not independently test a vial for this review. Where a page refers to a laboratory result, that result applies only to the named sample, method and attribute. We kept uncertainty beside the conclusion, recorded which source supports each material claim, and checked that the visible review date matches the publication record. A new controlled study, regulator update, corrected source, analytical report or credible safety signal can trigger reassessment through the public correction route.