Editorial policy
Short answer: PHPBiotech.wiki cites registries and peer-reviewed research first, attributes the company’s statements to the company, keeps laboratory results separate from claims about people, describes PHP Biotech as preclinical, and leaves out anything it cannot verify.
What sources does the wiki use?
Primary records first: ClinicalTrials.gov, patent publications, company registries and SEC EDGAR, and peer-reviewed papers indexed in PubMed. Then Internet Archive copies and company press releases. The company’s own website is used for its descriptions of itself, and those are attributed. Every source shows its retrieval date.
How is medical information handled?
PHP53-nb is an investigational, preclinical product. The wiki states its regulatory status plainly, says when results come from cell lines or animals, notes who funded published research, and never presents laboratory findings as evidence of benefit in people. Nothing on the site is medical advice.
How are company claims handled?
Statements from the company’s website and press releases, such as unpublished results, patent wording and plans, are written as “the company says” and set next to what records show on the claims page.
What happens when sources disagree?
All versions are shown with their sources, and the difference is noted, for example on the corporate records page. Anything that cannot be resolved is listed as an open question.
How are corrections made?
Errors are corrected promptly and substantive changes are logged in the changelog with a date in Pacific Time.
What is the conflict of interest?
The site is produced by a marketing agency that works for PHP Biotech. It does not present itself as neutral or unaffiliated. Readers should verify important facts directly with the primary records linked on each page.