# About Reviews TB-500: An Independent Editorial Case Review > Reviews TB-500 is an independent editorial project that summarizes the peer-reviewed research on TB-500 and thymosin beta-4. Not a clinic, not a vendor, no medical advice. Who keeps this file, what "reviews" means here, and what this project is not. ## What this project is Reviews TB-500 is an independent editorial project that publishes summaries of the peer-reviewed research literature on TB-500 and its parent protein, thymosin beta-4. 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 built as a case review because TB-500's literature is, unusually, a mistaken-identity problem. The molecule sold and named TB-500 is the ~889 Da Ac-LKKTETQ heptapeptide [1], but most of the efficacy evidence is on the ~4963 Da full-length protein [5]. Reading those apart — which finding belongs to which molecule — is the work this project exists to do. ## What "reviews" means here "Reviews" in the name does not mean star ratings, vendor comparisons, or buying guides. It means a case review: an honest reconstruction of what the studies measured, what they did not, and where the human-evidence trail goes cold. The standard is the published record — PubMed, peer-reviewed journals, ClinicalTrials.gov, and FDA primary pages — not anecdote. Every quantitative claim on this site is tied to a numbered citation in the source register. Where a finding is on the parent protein rather than the fragment, we say so in the sentence itself, because that distinction is the most common way TB-500 claims are overstated. ## What this project is not We are not a pharmacy, a telehealth service, or a prescriber. We do not offer treatment, consultation, or prescription services, and nothing here is an offer to sell or supply any substance. The domain name positions this publisher as a reviewer of the TB-500 literature — an editorial stance toward the evidence, not a claim to provide any clinical service. We describe what was administered to which species at which dose and by which route. We never recommend a human dose. For the regulatory boundary around access, see the legal-status file; for the limits of the evidence, see the research file. The aim is a file a careful reader can trust and verify. ## Our standard for a claim A statement earns a place in this file when it can be traced to a primary source — a peer-reviewed study, a clinical-trial record, or an FDA primary page — and when the sentence is honest about which molecule the finding is on. Quantitative claims carry a numbered citation that resolves to a journal, a year, and a DOI or PubMed link in the source register. When the literature is silent or mixed, we say so plainly rather than filling the gap with confident language. That standard is why this is a case review and not a sales page. The negative results stay in — the null mdx-mouse strength outcome, the porcine cardiac study that showed no benefit, the non-monotonic stroke dosing — because leaving them out would misrepresent the record. A reader should be able to take any figure here, follow the citation, and find the same number at the source. --- A case review of the TB-500 evidence — every finding tagged for the molecule it is on, no clinic behind the file and nothing here for sale.