Skip to content
An open clinical wellness journal with a vintage gold fountain pen and magnifying glass resting across the page, on a leather notebook in a library setting.
About

A peptide companion that treats you like an adult.

Juno helps you make better decisions about peptides and reduce harm. Honest evidence, accurate math, AI that helps you make sense of your own data, and a community-built dataset that’s starting to fill the research gaps the peptide field has lived with for too long.

We exist to be useful. The library, calculator, stack manager, and lab history are free for everyone. Premium subscribers fund the AI features, the infrastructure, and the editorial work that makes the rest of the site trustworthy.

Building real research for the peptide field

Most of what passes for “evidence” in the peptide community is forum anecdotes, vendor copy, and small case series. The published literature is thin, biased toward rodent and in-vitro work, and the gap between what users actually experience and what’s formally documented keeps growing.

Juno is building an opt-in, anonymized outcomes registry to start closing that gap. When users opt in, their regimen choices, dosing windows, and self-reported outcomes contribute to an aggregate dataset that researchers and clinicians can learn from. Your identity is kept structurally separate from your research contributions — your name and email never sit in the same table as the data the research engine reads, and aggregate results pass through a k-anonymity gate and differential-privacy noise layer before they’re reportable. Details are on the community research page.

We’re open to working with any regulatory body, academic group, or clinical organization that wants to bring rigorous human-scale research to peptide use. If you’re one of those and want to talk methodology, dataset access, or collaboration, email hello@juno.coach.

How your data is protected

Medical information you choose to share (medications, conditions, allergies) is encrypted at rest with AES-256-GCM, keyed to your account, and only decrypted in-flight for the AI calls you’ve consented to. Identifying information (name, email) is encrypted separately. Authentication uses magic links via signed email; JWTs are revocable from the server side.

The anonymized research dataset is architecturally separated from user identity. Observation records reference an opaque participant_id; the mapping back to a user is in a separately-locked table. You can purge your research contributions or delete your account entirely from your account page at any time.

Editorial posture (non-negotiable)

  • Educational, not prescriptive. We surface what the literature says with citations and confidence levels. We never tell users what to do.
  • Honest about evidence quality. We tier every claim. GLP-1 agonists are Tier 1 RCT data. BPC-157 in humans is Tier 3 despite community enthusiasm. We do not soften tiers to make peptides look better than the data supports.
  • Encourage clinician involvement. Consistent nudge toward a knowledgeable provider and bloodwork. Framed as "how to do this responsibly," not as a gate.
  • No miracle claims. Mechanisms, study results, effect sizes, limitations. Never "burns fat" or "reverses aging."
  • Adult-to-adult. We acknowledge that many users are doing this without a prescriber. Our job is to make their decisions better-informed, not to pretend they don't exist.

How evidence tiers work

Every peptide entry is classified per peptide-indication pair. The same molecule can be Tier 1 for one use and Tier 4 for another. The classification follows a decision tree we apply identically to every peptide, regardless of how popular or marketed it is.

Tier 1
Established human evidence. Multiple well-designed RCTs (typically n>50 per arm), replicated by independent research groups, peer-reviewed, with effect size and safety profile reasonably characterized in humans.
Tier 2
Limited human evidence. Small RCTs, Phase 1/2 trials without Phase 3 follow-up, or multiple consistent observational studies. Mechanism plausible from animal/in-vitro work.
Tier 3
Animal / in-vitro only. Strong rodent or larger animal data; in-vitro mechanistic work; one or two isolated human case reports. This is where most "research peptides" actually live, despite community framing that often implies more.
Tier 4
Anecdotal / theoretical. No usable primary literature. Forum reports, podcast claims, marketing material only. Mechanism speculation without experimental support.

Bias toward the lower tier when uncertain. Editorial credibility comes from never overstating. The cost of one tier too low is "user reads more carefully." The cost of one tier too high is "user trusts a claim that doesn't hold up."

What's here today

  • Peptide library — peptides, coenzymes, and companion compounds spanning the evidence tiers, with citations, dose ranges, contraindications, and side effects.
  • Peptide calculator — full reconstitution math with edge-case warnings and an SVG syringe visualization. The math has comprehensive automated test coverage.
  • Reconstitution guide — an interactive walkthrough with sterile technique notes.
  • Flashcards — three beginner-mode decks (Recovery, Metabolic, Longevity) with SM-2 spaced repetition.

What’s coming

Native iOS and Android apps built for the bench — push reminders so you don’t miss a dose, quick-glance stack view at the bathroom counter, and integrations with Apple Health, Whoop, and Oura so you can see how your protocol shows up in your wearables. Biomarker trends + lab-PDF OCR so your recurring panels auto-populate. An AI cause-and- effect engine that correlates protocol changes with how you actually feel. A doctor-ready report generator (already in beta on Premium) so you can walk into your clinician’s office with a clear summary.

Eventually, Juno may recommend specific vendors that meet high standards for purity, third-party testing, and safety — that’s a practical part of helping people use peptides more safely. When that happens, the criteria and any commercial relationship will be disclosed in plain text.

Tell us what to build next

Found a stale citation? A tier that doesn’t match the literature? A calculator edge case we missed? A feature you want? Use the feedback page or email hello@juno.coach. We read every message and editorial corrections ship fast.