corrections
Corrections log
The permanent public record of everything we have got wrong and fixed. It is dated, it names the page, and it is never pruned.
The log
8 August 2026 · homepage, the evidence gap section
What was wrong. The section read: "Everything sold today rests on animal studies and community reports." That overstated the position. Published human studies of BPC-157 do exist outside the two registrations, in groups of roughly a dozen to two dozen people, and FDA described several of them to its Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee in July 2026.
What it says now. That the small human studies exist, that FDA told the committee they were not enough to reach a conclusion on effectiveness, and that the record past them is animal studies and community reports. The headline figure is unchanged: there is still no completed, published human efficacy trial on the registries.
How it was found. Reading FDA's own meeting documents for that committee, which are summarised on the 503A record.
Entries are listed newest first. Each one gives the date, the page, the sentence or figure that was wrong, what it says now, and how the error was found.
The policy
When something published here turns out to be wrong, we fix the page and publish the correction. Corrections are not edited away quietly, and the log is never pruned.
What happens when an error is confirmed:
- The page is fixed.
- An entry is added to this log with the date, the page, what was wrong, what it now says, and how it came to light.
- The page's Last Reviewed date moves to the date of the fix.
- Where the error changed the meaning of a claim, a dated note is left on the page itself, next to the corrected text, rather than only here.
We do not delete a page to make an error disappear. If a page has to come down, this log records that it came down and why.
What counts as a correction
The line matters, because a site that logs every routine edit as a correction is as uninformative as one that logs none.
| Change | Treated as |
|---|---|
| A factual statement was wrong: a wrong number, a misattributed study, a misstated regulatory action | Correction. Logged here. |
| An evidence tier was assigned incorrectly against the source | Correction. Logged here, with the old tier and the new one. |
| An evidence tier changed because new evidence was published | Update. Dated on the page, not logged here. The entry, if any, says which it was. |
| A citation was broken or pointed at the wrong paper | Correction if it changed what a claim rested on. Otherwise a routine fix. |
| A regulatory section is now out of date because the record moved | Update. Dated on the page. |
| Wording that broke the editorial standards, for example a sentence that read as an instruction | Correction. Logged here, because that is the failure that matters most on this site. |
| Typography, layout, or a rewritten sentence with the same meaning | Neither. Not logged. |
Reporting an error
Write to corrections@braklabs.com. What helps most:
- The page address and the sentence or figure in question.
- What you believe is wrong about it.
- A source, if you have one. A primary source settles it fastest.
Every report gets read. Where we agree, the fix and the log entry follow, and we will tell you when they land. Where we disagree, we will say why. Anonymous reports are fine and we do not publish the name of anyone who reports an error unless they ask us to.
Why this page exists
Almost nobody in this category runs a corrections log. That is the reason to run one. A site that grades evidence and asks readers to trust the grading has to be visibly accountable when the grading is wrong, and an empty log with a stated policy is worth more than a page of assurances.
The policy is part of the editorial policy, and the standard for how claims get graded in the first place is on the methodology page.