Pinealon and the Khavinson "short peptide" claims — how should a skeptic read this literature?

You've already identified the core issue: quantity of papers from one lab is not the same as independent replication, and for extraordinary claims (tripeptides regulating gene expression to protect neurons) you really want outside groups reproducing it under different conditions. That's not a knock on the researchers, it's just how evidence weight works.

My approach with the Khavinson corpus: read it as a large, coherent hypothesis-generating body of preclinical work, note the mechanistic proposals, and then look hard for independent labs and any human trials. When those are sparse, I hold the conclusions as "interesting and unconfirmed" rather than established. Volume feels like evidence but structurally it isn't.

Good framing. I'd add that a lot of these short-peptide claims live at the preclinical/mechanistic level, so even if the biology is real, the leap to "meaningful cognitive benefit in a healthy human" is enormous and mostly unaddressed. Treat the gap between mechanism and outcome as the default state, not the exception.

And as always for anyone reading who's weighing this for their own health — this is a forum reading papers, not a substitute for a professional who can actually evaluate your situation.