What this desk is, and how to read it

What this is

skyhighpeptides is a reading desk for the published research on the growth-hormone axis. It covers four entries — ipamorelin, CJC-1295, sermorelin, and the CJC-1295 / ipamorelin combination — and it organises them around a single question rather than a product list: how can growth hormone be raised without flattening the pulse?

That question was chosen because it is the one that genuinely separates these compounds. Grouped by marketing category they look interchangeable. Grouped by what they do to the shape of growth-hormone secretion, they are four different theories: amplitude, duration, non-intervention, and both at once. Everything on this site is arranged to make that difference visible.

Nothing here is for sale. There is no shop, no dispensary, no referral arrangement and no dosing guidance. The site exists to summarise what has been measured and published, in plain language, with each claim traceable to the source it came from.

How claims are graded

The single most useful habit when reading about this category is to ask what kind of thing a study measured. This desk applies a consistent ladder, from strongest to weakest.

Controlled clinical outcomes — a randomised trial measuring something a person would notice. Rare here. Sermorelin's pediatric height-velocity data is the clearest example ^[16], and ipamorelin's Phase 2 result is the clearest negative ^[3].

Surrogate endpoints — hormone levels, IGF-1, serum proteins. Common here, and where most of the CJC-1295 human record sits ^[11][12][10]. A surrogate result is real data about a mechanism, and it is not evidence that anyone felt better. Where a page rests on a surrogate, it says so in the same sentence.

Read-across — evidence about a related compound applied to the one under discussion. The tesamorelin meta-analysis ^[17] and the tesamorelin cognition trial ^[13] are both frequently repackaged online as sermorelin or CJC-1295 evidence. They are not. This site labels the actual compound studied, every time.

Preclinical work — cells, rats, swine, ferrets, mice ^{[5][6][20][1]}. Informative about mechanism, silent about human outcomes.

Editorial and review argument — a specialist making a case in print ^[15][14][8]. Valuable, and not the same as data.

Community report — what people say about themselves in research-use forums. Recorded on this site because omitting it would misrepresent the field, always flagged as anecdotal, not clinical evidence, and never attached to a dose.

Standing rules

A handful of rules govern every page here, and they are worth stating so a reader can hold the site to them.

No dosing, ever. Where a study administered a specific dose, that dose is reported as a fact about the study, framed as what investigators gave under supervision. It is never converted into guidance. Three of the four entries here have no approved human indication at all, which means no validated dose exists to report.

No medical advice. This is a literature digest. Decisions about any prescription-requiring compound belong with a licensed clinician who can see the person in front of them.

Regulatory status stated precisely. "Not approved" and "withdrawn for safety" are entirely different facts, and sermorelin's history is routinely told as the second when it is neither — it was approved, then withdrawn from the US market in 2008 for commercial reasons. Precision here is not pedantry; it is the difference between an accurate page and a misleading one.

Enthusiasm is allowed; unsupported enthusiasm is not. The pulsatility story is genuinely interesting, and this site says so. It also says, in the same breath, that the key human measurement behind it comes from one study in healthy young men over one week ^[12].

Corrections are welcome. If a citation is misread or a fact has moved, the contact page explains how to say so.